This is a place to share issues, useful and helpful information regarding healthy communities - what are some of the community programs that are helping our people address these issues, both on-reserve and in the towns and cities? Traditional and Contemporary solutions?

RESTORING THE LIFEBLOOD: WATER, FIRST NATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGEcommissioned, authored by Merrell-Ann Phare,Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources.

This document scopes the main barriers and opportunities regarding First Nations and the management and state of their waters. In doing so, it sets out a conceptual pathway, including a series of initiatives that may signal are role for philanthropy in working with First Nations in building their resilience and sustainability, and their capacity regarding management and sustainability of their waters.http://philanthropyandaboriginalpeoples ... lo-res.pdf

Petition for Access to Clean Running Water in Manitoba's First Nation CommunitiesMany Manitobans living in First Nation communities do not have the same access to clean water as the majority of Manitobans.

Manitobans living in First Nations communities with poor sanitation experience poor health.

Lack of access to clean tap water will continue to increase health risks for Manitobans in First Nations communities.

Too little has been done in the last 12 years by the Provincial Government to ensure all First Nations communities in Manitoba have adequate water infrastructure.

We petition the Manitoba Government to partner with the Federal Government ensure all First Nations communities have access to clean running water for all their homes.

We petition the Manitoba Government to work closely with the Federal Government and First Nations communities to address and erase the massive water infrastructure gap that exists on many First Nations communities in Manitoba.

Contrast this situation of NDP inaction, to what happened in Ontario. In 1992, the Ontario government took the lead in working with Ottawa on an agreement to ensure many communities in Ontario have access to running water for their residents. This 1992 Liberal-NDP partnership agreement ensured homes in 21 First Nation communities in Ontario where there were homes without running water would have their homes connected to running water. This was followed by a Liberal-Conservative partnership agreement in 1996 which ensured an additional 14 First Nations communities would have their homes connected to running water. In spite of this example from Ontario, the Manitoba NDP have done nothing similar to ensure Manitoba homes are connected to running water and more than 1400 homes in Manitoba are still not connected. Indeed, shockingly, one of Manitoba’s senior Ministers said not long ago that he was not even aware of the Ontario agreements.

In June 2009, Jon Gerrard was in Garden Hill and saw first hand the very poor conditions with many homes with no running water. It is past time that this is changed and that communities all over Manitoba are ensured of having running water for their homes.

Manitoba Liberals are promoting a petition to get action to ensure all Manitobans have access to clear running water, and to be sure that First Nations communities in our province are treated fairly.

A copy of the petition is below.

To add your voice, please print a copy of this release petition, then gather signatures, and bring or send the petition in to my office in the Legislature –

Many Manitobans living in First Nations communities do not have the same access to clean water as the majority of Manitobans. Manitobans living in First Nations communities with poor sanitation experience poor health. Lack of access to clean tap water will continue to increase health risks for Manitobans in First Nations communities. Too little has been done in the last 12 years by the Provincial Government to ensure all First Nations communities in Manitoba have adequate water infrastructure.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

To request the Premier consider advocating and partnering with the Federal Government to ensure all First Nations communities have access to clean running water for all their homes. To request the Premier to consider working closely with the Federal Government and First Nations communities to address and erase the massive water infrastructure gap that exists on many First Nations communities in Manitoba.

The following is what the the newspaper received when its reporters sought federal government response to what has been reported.

-- Email statement from the office of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Minister John Duncan, Oct. 26, 2011OUR Government is strongly committed to the health and safety of all Canadians. That is why we are working with First Nations to improve water and wastewater systems on reserves across the country. We have made important and strategic infrastructure investments to support First Nations in operating their water and wastewater systems... however access to clean and safe water remains a serious concern.

Our Government remains committed to introducing safe drinking water legislation that will be designed to give the same protection to First Nations that other Canadians have.

Our government is also planning investments in nine water systems in Manitoba where the system had a high design risk and high overall risk rating. We recognize more needs to be done, especially in areas like monitoring and training. And that is why our government is investing in the Circuit Rider Training program to train and certify First Nation operators and managers. We continue to work with Island Lake First Nations to address the needs of their communities. We recently provided funding to support Island Lake Tribal Council in conducting a survey of houses to determine necessary retrofits for water service. This data will help my department, Island Lake Tribal Council and the four communities in working together to plan for future water service requirements.

-- Email statement from Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Nov. 2, 2011Our Government has made important and strategic infrastructure investments to support First Nations in operating their water systems. We have also committed to introducing legislation to give the same protection to First Nations that other Canadians have when it comes to accessing safe drinking water. Work is currently being done in partnership with Island Lake First Nations to address the needs of their communities through a survey of houses to determine necessary retrofits for water service. Our Government remains committed to working with First Nations and the province of Manitoba to take action on this important issue.- - -

First Nations and the University of Manitoba have formed a partnership on research "to expedite improvements to drinking water and sanitation".

2011/11/7

More than two dozen University of Manitoba researchers from nine faculties are trying to make a difference on Manitoba’s First Nations, where clean running water and safe sewage control are not something residents can take for granted.

The university’s new Centre for Human Rights Research, led by Karen Busby of the Faculty of Law, is spearheading a series of research projects aimed at speeding up improvements to water and sanitation services.

About 1,400 Manitoba First Nation homes don’t have taps and flush toilets. A total of 27 Manitoba First Nations have a water or wastewater treatment system at high risk of creating health, safety or environmental problems.

“As a university, we are committed to being part of the solution when serious challenges are identified in our province,” said University of Manitoba president David Barnard. “We need to reach out and collaborate with community partners, including First Nations, to find innovative solutions.”

The new Water Rights Research Consortium is a partnership between the University of Manitoba, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO), the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and other university and community partners.

The chiefs of the 30 MKO First Nations of northern Manitoba have directed Grand Chief David Harper to involve MKO’s health secretariat, natural resources secretariat and housing and infrastructure program in research partnerships that will support recognition of the fundamental human right of all First Nations citizens to have access to clean running water and adequate wastewater services. In July, MKO also asked the provincial and territorial premiers, as the Council of the Federation, to amend the council’s Water Charter to recognize that access to clean running water is a basic human right of all Canadians.

“MKO looks forward to working in partnership with the researchers contributing to the University of Manitoba’s Centre for Human Rights Research to help achieve recognition of the human right of all Canadians to clean running water,” said Grand Chief David Harper, whose home community of Garden Hill has many homes without running water.

“Accredited research can contribute to a more fulsome dialogue that will hopefully yield tangible solutions,” said AMC Grand Chief Derek Nepinak. “The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs will continue to encourage interested Manitoba First Nations to become involved in this project.”

Research projects under development include:

- engaging First Nations high school students in testing their drinking water for contaminants, including in the University of Manitoba’s high-tech labs;

- evaluating potential public advocacy strategies;

- exploring whether court challenges and other law reform could help achieve the goal of running water and sanitation systems;

- assessing how poor water and wastewater services affect health, economic status, education and the environment in First Nations; and

- a cost-benefit analysis of improving water and wastewater services.

An existing research project on First Nations health and housing may also be expanded to include the design of sustainable water and wastewater systems.

Barnard said the research aligns with many of the university’s strategic priorities: human rights, sustainable northern communities, public health, Indigenous achievement and even culture and creativity. The researchers hope to use video to help First Nations tell their stories.

The president said the university will also consider ways to engage undergraduate students in volunteer work that might benefit the affected First Nations.

University of Manitoba Students’ Union vice-president (external) Julie Rempel said UMSU is already working to increase awareness among students of the deplorable water, sanitation and housing conditions that affect many Northern Manitoba communities—the homes of many University of Manitoba students and their families.

The federal Liberals may have been decimated in the last election, but they still have some remarkable influence on behalf of First nations in Canada's House of Commons.

Liberal Leader Bob Rae introduced a motion calling on the Government of Canada to address on an urgent basis the needs of First Nations communities whose members do not have access to clean, running water in their homes, referring to the lack of access as a disparity representing an "affront to our sense of justice and fairness as Canadians".

All parties, including the reigning Conservatives support the motion. That prompted the following reaction from the AFN.

Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo today welcomed all party support for addressing the needs of First Nation communities requiring access to clean, running water in their homes, and urged the Government of Canada to work with First Nations on implementation.

"Access to safe, potable water and sanitation is a basic human right, and I commend all parties for their acknowledgement that urgent attention is required to ensure First Nation citizens have access to clean, running water in their homes," said AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo. "Report after report reveals the stark reality that the situation is only getting worse. Now is the time to act and First Nations are keen to work together with all levels of government in ways that respect our rights and responsibilities and the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so we can better ensure the safety of our people."

The motion, introduced by Liberal Leader Bob Rae in the House of Commons today, calls on the Government of Canada to address on an urgent basis the needs of First Nations communities whose members do not have access to clean, running water in their homes, referring to the lack of access as a disparity representing an "affront to our sense of justice and fairness as Canadians".

In July 2011, the National Water Assessment revealed that 73 per cent of water facilities were found to be in high and medium overall risk to First Nations. This week, EcoJustice released "Waterproof 3 - Canada's Drinking Water Report Card", which found that water quality in First Nation communities remains far below that of other communities in Canada and that there are few signs of improvement. In the report, Ecojustice calls for concrete funding and a clear action plan to address the failures of federal action.

There are currently 126 First Nation communities with drinking water advisories.

"Safe drinking water requires more than writing new regulations. It requires infrastructure and facilities, skills, training and resources," said National Chief Atleo. "We must work together to develop a plan, supported by resources, that will actually achieve safe and clean drinking water for our citizens and communities."

The federal government announced today $5.5 Million "toward improving water and waste water services in the four Island Lake First Nations". (Garden Hill, St. Theresa, Wasagamack, and Red Sucker Lake.)

Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Minister John Duncan said specific priorities will be determined in collaboration with First Nation leadership and are anticipated to include the procurement of building materials for retrofitting of homes and provision of additional equipment such as water and septic trucks.

A government news release said that since 2006, more than $2.5 billion has been "invested" in First Nation water and wastewater infrastructure, including more than $55 million in the Island Lake communities.

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.) moved: That the House call on the Government of Canada to address on an urgent basis the needs of those First Nations communities whose members have no access to clean, running water in their homes; that action to address this disparity begin no later than spring 2012; and that the House further recognize that the absence of this basic requirement represents a continuing affront to our sense of justice and fairness as Canadians.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Paul's.

It would be nice if we did not have to debate this issue, but we have to recognize that Canadians live, unfortunately, in very different conditions, depending on where they live. A continuing affront to our sense of wholeness, justice and fairness as Canadians is the fact that members of first nations communities and other aboriginal communities across the country are living in conditions of deep poverty and great hardship. The most telling reflection of this hardship is the fact that there are hundreds of communities which do not have access to clean running water at the present time.

I have a personal reflection on this because at the time that I led a government in Ontario, the provincial government made a decision that it was not going to tolerate this situation in our own province. Although it was, strictly speaking, outside our jurisdiction, we negotiated with the federal government a cost-sharing agreement in which Ontario, even though it did not have to, would contribute to infrastructure to ensure that people living in first nations communities would have access to clean running water, flush toilets, sewage treatment, and housing and the basic conditions of life which make a difference.

I spoke with Premier Selinger in Manitoba. He told me that he would be interested in negotiating a similar agreement with the federal government, but that the federal government was not expressing an interest in dealing with this question on an urgent basis. He signalled to me that his government was not going to do it without the support of the federal government, which is not an unreasonable position for him to take. However, if the federal government were willing, the Province of Manitoba would be willing to step up to the plate and contribute to making a difference to the first nations people who are living in northern Manitoba.

It really is quite extraordinary that the federal government has not taken up such an offer. It is not every day that a provincial government says it is prepared to spend money outside its jurisdiction in order to deal with a deep humanitarian problem. The federal government has said that it is prepared to change the regulations that would increase the requirements for first nations governments on the question of clean drinking water. However, that approach flies in the face of the recommendations the government has received from an expert panel that it appointed. That expert panel said to deal with the resources first and then the regulations.

The principle is very simple. We believe that all Canadians, regardless of where in Canada they live—whether it is in the north, the south or elsewhere in the country—have a fundamental right to have access to drinking water and that they also have the right to adequate water facilities. As Canadians, we refuse to accept that people live in such conditions of poverty, when we talk about Canada as a fair and just country. There is a contradiction there that the Liberal Party can no longer accept.

This is not a motion that is intended to engage us in partisan debate. I hope the government can find a way to support it.

The government may want to spend the day making partisan speeches saying that the Liberal government did not do this or that. We can all recognize that not everything was done that should have been done, but that is not the point.

The point is now we have clear public statements from the expert panel to which I have referred, chaired by Dr. Harry Swain who was a well-known deputy minister in the Government of Canada. We have the reports of the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser.

These reports from the Auditor General directly address the unacceptable living conditions in this country's first nations communities.

We have reports coming out as recently as this week indicating just how unacceptable it is for our country. As of 2010, 116 first nations reserve communities across Canada are under a drinking water advisory with a mean average duration of 343 days. Lack of access to clean drinking water presents a serious health threat to first nations reserve communities, creating a higher likelihood of disease and infection transmission, and poorer overall health outcomes.

We can look back to the 19th century and ask what explains the dramatic improvement in the living conditions of working people all across Europe, what accounted for a tremendous extension of life for working people in the middle of the 19th century. It was clean drinking water and sewage treatment. Those are the two things that made a profound difference to the health of ordinary people.

I can see many colleagues in the House, and all of us can speak of our travels. I remember one trip when I was in provincial politics in the 1980s to the communities recognized by my colleague from Timmins. It had an impact on me, and when I became premier I said that if we did nothing else, we had to take steps to make sure that we improved the basic living conditions and the infrastructure for the people living in Attawapiskat and Kashechewan and the communities on the shores of James Bay in the province of Ontario.

There is not a single member in this House who would not be equally affected by visiting the northern reserves right across this country. Members would find isolated conditions, people living in poverty, housing conditions that are unacceptable by any standard. Too many people are falling sick because they do not have access to something quite basic and fundamental, safe, clean drinking water.

Let us think about Canada, the country of clean water, the country of beautiful lakes, the country of flowing rivers. Is this a country that cannot provide the basics of life to its own people? Is this a country that says it will pass regulations but it will not provide the resources?

It is something we cannot accept, and we insist that it be changed.

Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Madam Speaker, I understand the umbrage that comes forward from the leader of the third party. I understand the substance of the motion. We will support this motion. It is a good motion from the standpoint that we all are in agreement that the current standards are unacceptable. The situation in first nation communities across the country in too many cases is unacceptable.

However, I do have a real issue with the attitude that is displayed. When I was sitting here in opposition for 13 years, in year 12, the government of the day sent the army into Kashechewan because it had not dealt with the fact that the community outfall was above the water intake. That is the kind of behaviour and lip service we saw from the Liberal administration, which I find unacceptable.

Hon. Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, you may be surprised and so may the minister by my response to that. I think we all recognize that more could and should have been done. I do not come into the House with this motion with any sense of partisan superiority. There is not a government in this country that can look at itself and ask if it has done everything possible to deal with this situation.

We all know the circumstances that have existed in the past. What we are asking the House to do is to say that these are conditions that cannot be allowed to continue. If it makes the Conservatives feel better all day to simply say that the Liberals did not do anything over a period of time, they can go ahead. We have a defence to that. We can show members what we have done. I pointed to an area where the Liberal government of the day and the New Democratic government in Ontario were able to agree on an infrastructure program in northern Ontario that actually made a difference, that actually fixed some problems.

I encourage the minister to take the same practical approach as we go forward.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that our communities of Kashechewan and Attawapiskat are being referred to because they are the epicentres of Canada's shame on the international stage for what is happening. As we speak, there is a state of emergency in Attawapiskat. There are families who are dumping waste out of buckets in the streets. That is happening under the current government. It happened in Kashechewan under the last government.

As premier of Ontario, he talked about the province getting involved. After Walkerton, we saw the province establish standards that affected water standards right down to cottages and to campgrounds, but those water standards end at the reserves. These are citizens of Ontario. People have seen the federal government's years of neglect. The member has spoken with the premier of Manitoba. Would he speak with Premier Dalton McGuinty and say that if the federal government will not protect the citizens of Ontario, that the province will step in and ensure that the guarantee of clean drinking water, fire standards and education will be maintained because these are citizens who are being denied their basic rights?

Hon. Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I have no hesitation in answering positively to that suggestion. I am prepared to talk to anyone on this question. Every government must be involved in trying to find a solution. We can all point fingers but the fact is that it is a clear federal responsibility to deal with conditions on reserve. I can only tell the hon. member what I did when I was in a position to do something about it. I know that is what the Liberal Party did when we had a chance to do something about it.

Instead of pointing fingers, we need to ask ourselves how we can continue as one country. How can we look ourselves in the mirror and say that we are one country when there are people living in conditions that would be completely unacceptable to anyone who is a member of this House? Any member of the House visiting a community like that would wonder how this has been allowed to go on. It will cost money. It will take resources. It will require training. It takes a change and we think it is time for that change to happen right here. It is time to do it.

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank my leader for his passionate speech, for his leadership and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue that is very important to all Canadians.

My friend, the member for Mount Royal, used the phrase “the mobilization of shame”, and that is really what today's debate is about. When Canadians see those posters in the washrooms about washing their hands, we hope they think about those people who do not even have running water to wash their hands. I feel embarrassed as a Canadian. What I have found throughout my riding of St. Paul's and across this country is that all Canadians are increasingly embarrassed about the third world conditions in which so many of our first peoples live.

It is important to recall what happened two years ago during H1N1. It is no coincidence that the communities, which ended up on the list of no running water, were the very communities devastated by the impact of H1N1. People in Canada came to know the names of St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Red Sucker Lake and Wasagamack because those were the communities with air transport taking out their citizens and too many of them not returning.

In Lessons Learned, we saw that, in the first wave, significant pressure was put on air ambulances when 76 patients required air transfer from their northern communities. In 383 hospitalizations, 71 patients were admitted to intensive care and there were 11 deaths due to H1N1 flu in those northern Manitoba communities, even though, in the report on H1N1, first nations communities in Manitoba and northern Ontario being hit by a highly communicable H1N1 virus. Despite being just 10% of the population in Manitoba, natives made up one-third of the 685 swine flu cases in that province. As our leader said, about 1,000 homes in northern Manitoba still have no running water and many of these homes have no plumbing of any kind.

During that time, we went to visit some of these communities. I think all Canadians need to, in some way, be with us on that journey, to walk into a home and see, where there ought to be a kitchen sink, a turquoise bowl filled with the water from last night's dishes because there is no place to put that grey water. People need to wait until the next water delivery comes. Or, walk into the outhouse that these people have to use all winter long. It is just inexcusable in a country as rich as Canada. I do not think there is one Canadian who thinks this should continue and that this is not an urgent problem.

When our government fell in 2005, we had just received the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. As others have said today, I, too, was in cabinet during the embarrassment and tragedy of Kashechewan. We know we need to do more but, unfortunately, that was six years ago.

Since then, we have had the report by the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations and the safe drinking water for first nations Senate report, chaired by the Hon. Gerry St. Germain, a Conservative senator, in which the conclusion reached states:

Legislation to regulate water standards on reserve is required. No one, including this Committee, argues differently. Regulations are, however, only part of the answer. Sustained investment in the capacity of First Nations community water systems and of those running the systems is absolutely essential to ensure First Nations people on-reserve enjoy safe drinking water. Without this investment, we risk introducing a regulatory regime that burdens communities and does little to help them meet legislated standards.

Unfortunately, the government has come forward with only an interest in legislation and no commitment for the resources to actually meet the standards that would be put forth in those regulations.

Then, in 2008, we had the devastating status report of the Auditor General of Canada in the House of Commons in Chapter 4—Programs for First Nations on Reserves.

We then had the national assessment on first nations' water and waste water systems which, members will be appalled to learn, was available in April 2011 but was hidden by the government until after the election. I think the Conservatives knew that all Canadians would have been appalled.

We then have the recent Waterproof 3, Canada's drinking water report card, in which the province of Ontario gets an A and the federal government gets an F. As my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has said, this is because the kind of report carding for provinces stops at the border of the reserve.

It says in that report that clean water is not just an environmental issue, that it is a health issue and a human rights issue. While the federal government now acknowledges the human right to water, it has not taken any steps to make that a reality for the people who live in this country.

This time last year, the Government of Canada signed the declaration for indigenous people wherein there is a responsibility on housing, sanitation, health and social security, and yet it has done nothing.

In September, we wrote to the minister and asked him to do something and explained that we would not be able to support any legislation that did not come with the resources that were necessary.

I believe that we, having written today's motion, need to amend it. In talking with first nations and the opposition, I now wish to move, seconded by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “no later than the spring of 2012” with the word “forthwith”.

The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to inform the members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Toronto Centre if he consents to this amendment being moved?

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Yes, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to say at the outset how pleased I am that the Liberal Party has amended its motion. We, in the New Democratic Party, have been pushing the issue of clean drinking water for many years and the need to recognize that this is an immediate crisis, not just something that can be put off, even for days.

At the present time, there is a state of emergency in the community of Attawapiskat. I visited with a doctor from the Weeneebayko health authority last week who said that these children and elders were now at immediate risk of life in the community from the lack of sanitation. Children have open sores on their bodies from being exposed to toilet waste that is being dumped in ditches.

I would like to ask the member what she thinks about a situation where a government has money for all manner of priorities except for first nations children. We see it in education and in housing. We see again and again the sense that there are two classes of people in this country and that one class of first nations children are continually considered nonentities. What does that say about our country? What does that say about the Parliament of Canada at this time?

Hon. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I am saddened that the Minister of Health has never visited any of these communities. The Arctic is a very different place from the places on reserve. During the H1N1 crisis there were no visits.

We need leadership from the federal government. This affects many government departments. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs cannot do this on his own. The First Nations Inuit Health Branch also needs to provide some leadership. It is a tragedy. I urge the Minister of Health to visit these communities, particularly Attawapiskat, to see first-hand the action that must be taken by the government.

Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Madam Speaker, the honourable leader of the third party in this House spoke a great deal about the federal government's responsibility in this regard. The hon. member just spoke about Kashechewan—I hope that I pronounced that correctly. According to our research, the water quality was so bad there at the time that residents had to be evacuated. The Liberals' first reaction was to argue with the provincial government about whose responsibility this was. It is therefore a bit surprising to see their reaction today.

In the hon. member's opinion, how is the position of our friends in the third party different now with regard to the federal government's responsibility? Should they have taken action at the time rather than arguing with the province?

Hon. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I hope that this question is not a history lesson. It is a priority for the future. When our government was in office, the situation in Kashechewan was not very pretty. The Kashechewan First Nation must move communities to one location near a river and train its people on how to manage drinking water systems. I hope that, today, all the members of this House agree that the situation is urgent and that action must be taken immediately.

Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am a little astounded with some of the things that have been said here. Since we became government, we have put in place all of the things that needed to be addressed in a comprehensive way in order to make real progress in terms of advancing to the point where first nations will have the same water standards and quality as other Canadians have.

I am acutely aware of one thing. We were operating from a 2001 national assessment done under the previous administration. A lot of our discussion has revolved around the Island Lakes region in Manitoba and the fact that many homes in that area do not have piped water and sewers. Very conveniently, the 2001 national assessment done under the previous government only looked at communities with piped water and sewers. We chose to do a complete and comprehensive survey, the Neegan Burnside study. I released the results of that survey this year.

Government does not enter into an exercise like that unless it is prepared to deal with criticism. Obviously, the more comprehensive the survey is, the more problems that are going to be identified.

Since 2006, we have invested $2.5 billion on first nations water and waste water systems. Every year we have invested more than the previous government by quite a long shot, yet we keep hearing that somehow we are not prepared to make the investment but we want the regulations. I find that to be very hypocritical.

I would like to talk about the first nations infrastructure investment plan. This is something we develop annually in partnership with first nations. We have ongoing A-base funding of roughly $1 billion a year under the capital facilities and maintenance program. We are earmarking the largest percentage, approximately 45%, of that asset area for water and sewer.

In addition, we are working with communities that have been mentioned both by my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and my colleague from St. Paul's. We are doing a lot more in these communities than we are being given credit for. As a matter of fact, we are going to be making real progress in the short term on those. For that reason, I have no difficulty with the amendment that has been put forward by the member for St. Paul's because we are on it.

I agree that residents of first nations communities should have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water. I have significant experience in my professional history prior to becoming a member of Parliament on which to base that belief.

Our government has devoted much time, energy, and taxpayer dollars to addressing the issue. We inherited a backlog of high risk water systems from the previous government. We addressed those high risk systems that were identified by the 2001 assessment, which we now know from the national assessment we commissioned and reported on this year was woefully lacking. We have more issues out there than what we originally believed.

When we formed government, we collaborated with the Assembly of First Nations to begin to implement a plan of action on first nations drinking water. While considerable progress has been made, as I have described, much work does remain to be done.

There are complex factors that contribute to the problem. It is absolutely unacceptable that first nations communities are not protected by the same standards of drinking water as other Canadians are. As minister, I have been clear and consistent on this point. The national chief has been clear on this point as well. He described the situation before the Senate standing committee looking into the issue this way:

When children and their families are not able to trust the drinking water, there is no safety or security.

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.

Most Canadians trust the quality of their drinking water. The foundation for this trust is a regulatory framework, clearly defined responsibilities and protocols enshrined in law. The legal framework applying to municipalities, provinces and territories, along with public health agencies and utilities, prescribes specific roles, but no such legal framework exists for the vast majority of first nations communities.

There was reference to various reports by various bodies. A Senate standing committee in 2007 concluded with the simple statement that legislation to regulate water standards on reserve is required.

Every independent group that has studied the matter in any depth has reached a similar conclusion. The framework currently in place is clearly inadequate. The two major components of the current policy framework are protocols for safe drinking water on reserves and guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. These documents are undoubtedly valuable, but they have no legal basis. The policy is not legally binding and it does not support full accountability.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development completed a study of first nations drinking water. The study looked at the joint initiative launched in 2003 by Health Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. According to the report, the 2003 initiative suffered from an inherent flaw: the absence of clear performance indicators and accountability mechanisms. Part 5 of the commissioner's report reads in part, “It's not clear who is ultimately accountable for the safety of drinking water”.

Further on, the report states:

[U]ntil a regulatory regime comparable with that in provinces is in place, INAC and Health Canada cannot ensure that First Nations people living on reserves have continuing access to safe drinking water.

The commissioner made five recommendations: create a federal regulatory regime for drinking water on reserve; clarify design codes and standards; ensure monitoring and follow-up; create institutions for capacity building; and provide progress reports to Parliament.

We are continuing to take action on each of these recommendations. Clearly we must set the bar higher for water and waste water systems in first nations communities. Without clear standards and assigned responsibilities, we cannot hope to succeed. That is why we introduced legislation on this subject in the last Parliament and why we will introduce similar legislation in this Parliament. We have worked diligently for over a year with first nations partners on developing acceptable legislation, and we have made a commitment that we will continue to work in a collaborative way in the regulatory process flowing from the legislation.

The proposed legislation aims to make use of the expertise of provincial and territorial regimes. The regulations would be enabled by a new federal law on safe drinking water for first nations. The legislation would leverage existing regimes, along with the considerable expertise and experience of provincial and territorial officials, to establish appropriate regulations adapted to the needs of first nations communities in each region.

The legislation would bring us a giant step closer to our larger goal: that residents of first nations enjoy the same protections afforded other Canadians when it comes to safe, clean and reliable drinking water, and the effective treatment of waste water.

I will return to the conclusion of the report by the Senate committee that looked into this:

Regulations are, however, only part of the answer. Sustained investment in the capacity of First Nations community water systems and of those running the systems is absolutely essential to ensure First Nations people on-reserve enjoy safe drinking water.

We can have the best infrastructure in the world, but if we do not have the appropriate certified and trained operators to run the system, we are at great risk of something going wrong. Therefore, we are making major investments in operator training and certification as well as infrastructure. Those are the two prime areas.

We are working with first nations, and provincial and territorial officials because they have first-hand experience. They know what works and what does not. They know how to make water and waste water treatment facilities work. This is what we need to do to craft an effective regulatory regime.

I mentioned earlier that between 2006 and 2012, the Government of Canada will have invested approximately $2.5 billion in first nations water and waste water infrastructure and capacity. Some 130 major projects were completed in the four fiscal years ending March 2010. These projects included expansions to existing water and waste water systems; construction of new systems, storage facilities and pumping stations; expansion of distribution and collection networks; and development of subdivision lots with water and sewer servicing. However, until an adequate legal framework is in place to support them, there is significant risk to these projects.

The national assessment was a very time-consuming exercise, because we have 633 communities across the country. Many of them are small and dispersed, with multiple water and sewer distribution systems, including individual wells and septic systems. Nearly 60% of the communities have 500 or fewer residents.

That is why we must have regular and frequent sampling and testing of water to ensure public safety. We need the legislative framework and accountability networks to be in place. Otherwise, we have no assurance that the treatment and distribution system can ensure safe, clean and reliable drinking water.

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there is no question that a better regulatory regime is an important objective. As I said in my earlier comments, this is not about trying to score one point against another.

I want to ask the minister about the conversation I had with Premier Selinger just a few days ago. He indicated, and it was not something the premier was telling me privately but something he said in the legislature, that the Province of Manitoba was prepared to sign the same kind of joint agreement as was signed between Ontario and the federal government to deal with the infrastructure needs of the communities that do not have access to running water now.

I wonder if the minister could tell us if the Government of Canada is prepared to contemplate entering into such an agreement.

Hon. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I have had multiple discussions with the minister of aboriginal affairs in Manitoba. Our government did sign a comprehensive agreement on flooding and flood proofing. We all know of the very tragic stories emanating from Manitoba because of flooding this year, and the federal response has been very good on that.

In my discussions with the aboriginal affairs minister on the Island Lakes region, the homes that were built with no capacity for accepting running water and toilet facilities were an issue. We have agreed to collaborate through HRSDC programming and some provincial input to make some changes there. We are also looking at some other progress that we think we can make very early, perhaps starting this year, in upgrading some of those same homes.

I do not know the details of what the agreement was between Ontario and the federal government, but without knowing the details I can say that we are very willing to collaborate and co-operate with the Province of Manitoba. I am very optimistic. There was also involvement with the Mennonite community. Both the federal and provincial authorities were embracing that thought process and that organization as well.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague when he talked about 2005 when the army was sent into Kashechewan. I was there during that evacuation and we would all agree that it was one of the low points for Canada in terms of our failing the first nations communities.

I have worked with the minister on the issue of getting fire services into Kashechewan. We have worked on the Attawapiskat school situation. I have talked to him about the ongoing crisis in Attawapiskat. I appreciate that there is a working team in place and right now the plan is to dedicate $500,000 to try to remediate badly condemned homes. If a house is abandoned in Attawapiskat, it is pretty much beyond the pale of anything one would imagine anywhere else.

I am concerned about the immediate risk in Attawapiskat, the lack of services and inability to deal with the fact that people are facing health risks due to the dumping of toilet waste because they have no running water. I would ask the minister if, as part of the Attawapiskat working group, he would bring in a health team and direct his bureaucrats to work with the community to address the immediate risk that is facing these families.

I am very concerned about the risk of fire in a trailer. There are 90 people living in one trailer. If there is a fire this winter, it will be tragedy befalling all of us. I am asking the minister if he will work with us to ensure that we have a broader strategy to alleviate this so that we do not have another Kashechewan.

Hon. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for the question. It seems like we do have lots of conversations.

The member's request seems most reasonable. I will talk to my colleagues and my officials about having Health Canada input into the working group that is trying to address the current issues in Attawapiskat. That was the question and I think this answer will be satisfactory to the member.

Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC): Madam Speaker, being a professional engineer, I am aware of the importance of clean water for people and the environment.

I would like to ask the hon. minister how legislation would help protect Canada's substantial investments in first nations water and waste water systems?

Hon. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, whenever we have assets that we have constructed, if they are not properly maintained, we do not get normal longevity from them.

We have houses that were constructed in first nations communities in 2006 that are now boarded up and uninhabitable. While this is not an example of water and waste water, the latter systems also require continual, ongoing monitoring and maintenance.

This is why the operator training program is so important. Much of our investment since 2006 has been in hard investment, the infrastructure investment. We need to ensure that we have protected that investment by having standards, plus the trained people to look after it. In that way we can continue to afford to make ongoing investments. Otherwise, this becomes a quagmire or quicksand, and we will never get to where we need to be.

Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Madam Speaker, it seems that we all agree that it is urgent that this matter be resolved and that it is also urgent that sustainable solutions be found immediately.

I would like to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development if he is going to champion this cause among his health, finance and infrastructure colleagues in order to ensure that appropriate and sustainable solutions are found for aboriginal communities. I would like to know what he plans to do so that he and the colleagues that I just mentioned take immediate action.

Hon. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, of course I am the lead minister on this, and of course the government has made major commitments and investments and continues to do so.

We do have a plan that we are re-doing on an annual basis, as I mentioned in my speech. We do not do this in a vacuum, but we do it along with our first nations partners. That is ongoing.

The nice thing about now having the comprehensive national assessment is that we know where to set our focus and our priorities in terms of our investments. Technology is moving very quickly and is making things more affordable, not less affordable. That is good news, as well.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay. Unfortunately, the wonderful region of James Bay in Ontario is the epicentre of so much of the tragedy that we have been talking about this morning. It is of course all across Canada, but our communities seem to be pointed out.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Manicouagan.

Right now, as we speak, there is state of emergency in the community of Attawapiskat. It is not the first state of emergency, it is the third state of emergency in the space of three years. I was there last Monday with the Weeneebayko Area Health Authority meeting with families living in tents. In one tent we met a family of six who have lived in a tent with two double beds and a couch for two years. It was pretty cool and the snow had not started. The mother said that when one daughter gets upset, she says she is going to her room. Her room is the couch.

One would have to see this situation to believe it. In another case, we were in an unheated shack that had two grandparents and a little girl sharing a bucket. The bucket was their toilet. They had to dump it in the street in front of their neighbours. On that corner there were 15 people dumping buckets in ditches. This is in Canada in 2011. If we did not see it first-hand, we not believe that this situation exists.

There are 90 people living in a trailer with six washrooms and hardly any fire exits. If a fire were to break out in that trailer over the winter, it would be a catastrophe. There is no sprinkler system. There are no fire alarms. This is the sense of urgency in Attawapiskat right now. These states of emergency do not just happen, crises do not just appear. As we have seen in Kashechewan in 2005, we had three full evacuations of one community in one year, first from E. coli and then because of the flooding. It happens because of a number of factors: chronic underfunding and poor planning.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs talked about houses built in 2005. They are uninhabitable. I was in Fort Albany just two years ago, where a brand new subdivision had children sick from the mould covering the walls. The houses were built on the cheap, not for the flood plains of James Bay. How can we put good money after bad? How could we have such poor planning in place that we build stuff on the cheap? The water crisis in Kashechewan was a direct result of the fact that the water plant was not built up to standards.

Beyond the poor planning and the chronic underfunding is the regulatory lapse that allows for two sets of standards, one that protects the rights of citizens across this country and then another standard that almost does not even exist for first nations people.

Let us talk about fire protection. On the James Bay coast in the far north, for police services, they did not bother to put sprinkler systems in the fire units because it costs money. That would be illegal anywhere else in the province of Ontario or Canada.

We were in the Kashechewan jail cell which looked like a makeshift crack house. The provincial minister of security went to see this place with us, but nothing was done. Two men, Jamie Goodwin and Ricardo Wesley, burned to death in that jail cell. They were screaming to get out. The police were burning their hands to get them out. They could not. There were no fire suppressions or sprinkler systems. That would be illegal anywhere else, but in first nations communities that lack of regulatory framework happens all the time.

We need to address the chronic underfunding. I am glad to hear the present Indian affairs minister talk about the need to start investing. Two years ago, in Attawapiskat, we had a sewage backup and 90 people were left homeless. The response at the time from the then Indian affairs minister was, “Tell them to just stay in their houses”. They had dirt and waste coming from their basements, and they were told to sit in their houses and wait. Those houses were not fixed. The damage started the ball rolling for the present crisis in Attawapiskat. Anywhere else in Canada there would be a response, but this is not what has been happening.

We see communities like Kashechewan and Attawapiskat reaching the breaking point. In terms of this regulatory double standard, there is a new film out called Canada: Apartheid Nation that is about the situation in Attawapiskat. I do not use that word lightly because the Toronto Star used the word “apartheid” to describe the situation for children in Attawapiskat who had been denied basic education rights that are the right of any other child in this country.

There is discrimination against first nations children in these communities. Children are going to school coming from overcrowded homes. In Attawapiskat there are 25 to 26 people in a two bedroom house. People sleep in shifts. The children go to school on a toxic wasteland in a makeshift portable. No wonder kids start dropping out in grade five.

Shannen Koostachin, who is from our region, talked about children who give up hope and lose hope in themselves in grades 4 and 5, and kill themselves. There is no support for those children when they are in crisis. Just this past month a youngster killed himself in southern Ontario. It was a tragedy. The nation said we have to do something.

In Moose Factory, two winters ago, 13 children killed themselves and 80 other children attempted to kill themselves. It is a town of 2,000 people. Imagine what would happen if 93 children were taken out of any community of 2,000 people to be marked for death. There would be an international outrage. What was the response? While the community was running around trying to save kids from killing themselves, the province cut the Payukotayno child welfare services because it was costing too much money.

This is the double standard that is happening. Therefore, we need to invest. I will support the government with respect to the building of water infrastructure, which has never happened before.

However, we have to address the fact that the basic rights of these community members are being denied. We do not have the proper building standards on the reserves that we have provincially. We do not have the same education standards on reserves that we have provincially. There is a chronic double standard. We do not have the same fire standards on reserves that we have in the communities.

In Kashechewan I went to the funeral of Trianna Martin, the four-year-old girl who died in a house fire. There were 27 people in that house. There was not even a fire truck to get to that little girl. This is the kind of thing that happens.

As a country Canadians have a hard time believing it because we pride ourselves on our willingness to care. However, right now I have a state of emergency. I have people living in tents in one of my communities down the road from the richest diamond mine in North America. They are dumping their waste in buckets saying that they cannot go on like that any more. The doctors are saying that children will die, that something will happen. This is the extent of the crisis.

It is not just in Attawapiskat, Port Alberni, Kashechewan or Moose Factory; it is in community after community across Indian territory. It will only change when we decide to make it a priority. The greatest resource we have in the north is not the oil sands, the diamond mines or the copper mines, it is the children who come from these reserves.

If members met some of the children in communities like Attawapiskat, it would break their hearts because they have given up hope. Some young people have the power to change the world. However, if we do not give them the homes or the education and health supports that they deserve, we are wasting the greatest possible resource this country has. It is a black mark on Canada right now internationally. It has to end. It has to change.

We can talk all we want about investments and regulatory frameworks. This is not a partisan issue. It is part of the broken promise that goes all the way back to the breach with Champlain to be on a path together with our first nations communities. We will continue on that path.

In many ways over the last 10 years I have seen how that path has moved forward, but in 20 years, 30 years or 50 years, we will still be on that path. It is incumbent upon us now to fix what was done. The damage done by the residential schools should not be continuing today with children being denied basic education services. What happened in Kashechewan in 2005 should never happen again in any other community in this country.

We are on a path together. We have to get beyond the partisan fight. We have to make this a priority in this Parliament, at this time, for our children and with respect to our obligations for the future of the country.

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay for his passion and leadership on this issue.

This is not a criticism of the member's speech; it is a comment. I would like the member to reply with a brief comment as well.

What is missing in this discussion so far is the issue of self-government. We have to change the nature of the relationship.

Here we are debating the conditions of a sewage treatment plant or the lack of running water in a community thousands of miles away because it does not have the resources to deal with these problems. Until we create a Canada wherein we actually transfer the resources to allow people to make these decisions to get on with it themselves, we will continue this pattern of frustration and dependence, which is such a negative aspect of this whole issue we are discussing today.

We all need to figure out a way to move forward on the self-government agenda. We nearly got there at one time in our constitutional history. However, we did not get there and, as a result, we see a huge backup in land claims, discussions and negotiations. There is great difficulty getting there.

I would ask the hon. member to comment on that.

Mr. Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, the issue of self-government is essential and it is the one other element that needs to be addressed.

When I said that I have seen elements going forward, I had the great honour to work with the Algonquin Nation in Abitibi and La Verendrye Park in northern Ontario.

Ten years ago there were blockades stopping projects. Now there are impact benefit agreements. The problem is, we need to go further. We need to get beyond the limitations of the Indian Act.

When I talk to people in Attawapiskat, they tell me how they have been handcuffed for the last 100 years by the Indian Act. Some 150 years ago it was the Hudson Bay factor and then it was the Indian agent, but now it is the INAC bureaucrats. They are all the same guy, and they all have their finger holding down these communities.

We have to re-establish a broader political relationship and we will see change, but in order to do that, we need to ensure resources and we need to ensure that there are education opportunities, that there are training opportunities, and that they have the resources to become fully able to handle the communities because they know what the issues are and they know the solutions.

Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member, who spoke with such passion. I am very familiar with his passion and empathy for the aboriginal communities in his riding. However, I think that he speaks for all aboriginal communities and even for all the forgotten people in our very prosperous country.

I would like him to provide more details because he addressed a number of issues. It is not just a matter of infrastructure; there are many other areas affected. I would therefore like him to speak more about the importance of having a strategy that truly helps these communities in a sustainable way.

Mr. Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, there are many broader issues that will be spoken to over the day. We need to inspire and we need to be inspired by the young people. They are the future.

I tell the story again and again of Shannen Koostachin and the young people of Attawapiskat. What they have done, from putting a face to the forgotten faces of first nations children, has changed the debate in this country forever. They are not just heroes of first nations communities, they are heroes to kids across this country.

The older people in the House probably do not realize how much change is happening on the ground, but if they go into a public school anywhere in this country and ask about what the kids on the James Bay coast have done on education rights, any kid will be able to tell them that story.

It is happening with the young people. We have to have heroes; we have to have role models. I have seen children in communities who start to give up hope because they do not think they can make a difference. That is how much we have internalized the damage, but there is real positive change happening.

We have great leaders. We need to work with them and give them the tools they need, and again, education, education, education. Every child needs the right, as Shannen said, to go to a safe and comfy school because when they have that educational opportunity, we will see northern Canada transformed in a way that it could never have been transformed otherwise.

Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Madam Speaker, considering the ethnological concepts that will be addressed in this speech, it is important to provide some context in which to frame the intellectual exercise about to take place.

Having spent the past few months in this House and at a number of different meetings of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, today I can offer some underlying reasons for the almost total lack of aboriginal popular support for Canada's political dynamic.

The first nations' historical passiveness toward the democratic process, as observed in this House, reflects a desire to distance themselves from the utilitarian relationship that has gradually developed between the aboriginal communities and the Canadian government. When I talk about a utilitarian relationship, of course I am talking about it in a purely pernicious sense since, too often, aboriginal identity issues are used for advancing some sort of political platform.

It seems that too often the socio-cultural issues of the first nations are brought to the public's attention only if there are political gains to be made by the various parties sitting in this House.

This perception stems from certain aboriginal apprehensions associated with the fraudulent manoeuvres of supposedly bygone days and is fuelled mainly by a strong sense of powerlessness against a system that is removed from the social realities of contemporary tribal communities.

I am deliberately putting the emphasis on the concept of “community” since my argument focuses mainly on the living conditions of Indians living on reserves. I differentiate between Indians living on and off reserve because during the last committee meeting, a representative of the commission on aboriginal peoples indicated that there was a certain inequity, there were certain noticeable differences between the living conditions of Indians living in urban centres off reserves and those living on reserve. I am emphasizing that difference today.

For six months now, I have been doing my best to introduce my colleagues to a culturally relevant vision of the Indian issues that enter into our debates and parliamentary work. This has led me to comment on certain statements made by my colleagues on issues such as access to housing and essential services for remote reserves in Canada.

I am bringing this up today in connection with the comment made by the hon. member who spoke before me. At the beginning of the week he sent me a press release on the situation as experienced by members of the Attawapiskat community.

He began by saying that aboriginals living in that community are now reduced to living in camps. In response, I jokingly said—jokes are a typical Innu way of changing the subject and defusing the tension—that aboriginal communities have been living in camps for 30,000 years. There is nothing new under the sun. But what is distressing is that this is not a choice for these communities; they are being forced into it out of necessity. I feel that this is a sorry state of affairs in 2011 since access to basic services should go hand in hand with the notion of being a Canadian citizen.

It is sometimes wise to boil ideas down to their most basic concept. This is one tactic, one characteristic of my nation—we always try to return to traditional reasoning when faced with a difficult situation. Often, we find solutions to uncomfortable situations in the community.

This vision, which is part of the community I come from, is extremely useful when looking at possible solutions to the daily problems faced by the Innu nation. It is one of the reasons that we ask questions of elders, who take on the task of applying a traditional vision when it comes to contentious issues and issues of identity. And when I say contentious, I mean situations that pit certain community members against one another.

In the past, we used a consensus process; it was a type of community justice. If there were disputes between people in the community, this process resolved many issues in the end. There was an adversarial aspect: people would openly state the problem and a solution would often be found through collaboration.

That said, even those with ancestral knowledge, the elders, within my home community fully realize that they cannot completely dismiss modern socio-economic realities when looking at the living conditions of band members. That is why I must agree with the argument presented by my colleagues who say that access the basic commodities, such as running water, potable water in fact, is one of the intrinsic rights of a Canadian citizen.

The simple fact that nearly 2,000 aboriginal households in Canada do not have access to running water illustrates the urgency of the situation. This alone is enough to justify a unified effort by all levels of government in order to address this matter of national interest. Needless to say, it is the federal government's duty to preserve human dignity in this country. In that regard and under international law, drinking water is recognized as essential and a prerequisite to exercising human rights. Without drinking water, exercising human rights would be rather difficult, since, after two or three days, there would no longer be any humans.

With that in mind, in my speech I plan to highlight certain industry practices that specifically affect the integrity of water resources in Canada's isolated communities. Exploration and mining activities north of the 50th parallel present a significant risk in terms of contamination of groundwater, which is vital to isolated communities that have only limited recourses when it comes to access to drinking water. I am addressing the issue from the perspective of the 50th parallel because it is relevant to my culture and my background. Many resource exploration initiatives are taking place at this time, either near or north of the 50th parallel. History shows that these lands are inhabited mainly by remote aboriginal communities that are cut off from the rest of the world.

I emphasize this little-known aspect—the harmful impact of industrial practices on the living conditions in aboriginal communities—because many instances of damage and deterioration in first nations' water resources have been brought to my attention in the context of my job. In fact, I plan to go to Kitigan Zibi over the weekend—along with one of my colleagues whom this concerns directly, since the community is in his riding—in order to address some concerns raised by residents there. I will be able to shed some light on the situation and update the House when I return.

My brief experience in this Parliament leads me to believe that the current political and economic climate favours the indiscriminate extraction of mineral resources in remote regions. This suits the unfortunate plans of an all-powerful industry that cares nothing for the concept of corporate social responsibility because each social unit north of the 50th parallel is so isolated. With this speech I am giving notice that I will be keeping an eye on industry practices in traditional first nations territories. Damage to the water resources in isolated communities is just one of the adverse effects of putting economic interests first in this country.

I assure the House that I will use all means at my disposal to ensure that social and environmental considerations will temper the initiatives put forward by a government which, through wilful blindness fueled by purely mercantile considerations, is contributing to the ruin and perdition of the nation.

Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate the concrete examples provided by my colleague. He always gives speeches that reflect his community. He said that governments do not acknowledge the importance of working with the Assembly of First Nations. In 2010, the Prime Minister abstained from the vote that would recognize the right to water and sanitation of the Assembly of First Nations. We are talking more about water quality. In addition to harming the health of first nations, the Conservative government's decisions also harm the environment. Environment Canada's budget was drastically cut this year, which will lead to less monitoring of drinking water quality, not to mention the impact of industrial infrastructure. How does my colleague feel about that?

Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. If the considerations and concerns raised by the AFNQL—I was talking about Quebec and Labrador—are not taken into consideration by the government, know that I am all ears, as are others in the NDP. During our last meeting with that assembly, we talked about the integrity of resources and groundwater. These topics were also discussed directly with Chief Picard. The other chiefs who belong to this assembly also shared their concerns. This problem is being studied right now, especially with respect to the effect of radon gas and its presence in groundwater.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in 2004, under the former Liberal government, we had the Kelowna accord, which had the agreement of different levels of government and aboriginal communities. If the current government had respected the Kelowna accord, the communities would be benefiting from it now. Would they not be in a better position than they are now? I would like to know what the member thinks about that.

Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The accord he is referring to was not brought to my attention. Members will understand that I am new to the House.

There is certainly some complacency on the other side of the House since this situation has yet to be fixed, even though it is nothing new. The quality of water in isolated communities has been in the news for years, and I have yet to see any measures introduced to resolve this problem. The industry still has a strong presence in isolated regions and contributes nothing, with its drilling, to improving these communities and even less so to improving the quality of the water, basins and groundwater.

Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Manicouagan on his absolutely incredible presentation, which shed a lot of light on the whole issue. I would simply like to ask him if he can suggest any solutions to any of the issues he raised in his speech.

Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. These issues are part of everyday life in Washat, whenever I go back. Since it is a 15-hour drive from Ottawa, I cannot return as often as I would like. Problems regarding water resources are still affecting communities near Sept-Îles because of uranium exploration. The same is true on the Lower North Shore. In my region, problems are often related to mining exploration. Personally, I think these issues need to be debated further over the next few years, since the situation is not really improving and I have not seen any proactive measures to fix the situation.

Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate on the opposition day motion on water in first nations communities.

We have identified this as an issue whose time has come to be solved. This morning the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada spoke very clearly about the fact that there has been inadequate attention paid to this issue by all parties over the years. We can argue who has done good things and who has not done good things. His plea was that we put partisanship aside and we recognize together that there is no reason for not solving the problem. The problem is the inequity in terms of access to safe, clean drinking water and waste water treatment in first nations communities compared with non-aboriginal communities. I could not agree more.

This is an issue that all members of Parliament care about. It is a humanitarian issue. It is an equity issue. It is about safety. It is about saving lives. It just takes political will. This motion invites members of Parliament to agree that the time to solve this problem is now.

All levels of government share a responsibility for ensuring that all Canadians have reliable access to clean, safe drinking water.

We need to establish a strategy immediately in order to ensure that all aboriginal communities have access to drinking water. We need to take pertinent and decisive action to resolve this completely unacceptable situation.

There are fundamental water problems in Canada. Water is a very complex issue. The delivery of safe and clean drinking water is extremely complex. I learned that in my first year as minister of the environment in British Columbia. There were far too many boil water advisories in British Columbia. As the environment minister, I worked with the health minister to look at our approach to drinking water. A panel of experts headed by up by Mr. David Marshall, who was the chair of the Fraser Basin Council, assessed a proposed new drinking water act. It provided feedback to the government. That act was duly passed. There was also a safe drinking water action plan.

That action plan addressed the cumulative impacts on water. It gave communities the power to bring industry, the municipal government, non-governmental organizations and government departments together to develop a plan for addressing the cumulative impacts on water. The regulations gave the government some teeth for making sure that the challenges to obtaining safe and clean water were addressed. Having gone through that process, I am aware of the great complexities that plague us in having safe drinking water in communities across our geographically vast nation.

The regulatory and legislative gaps are still rife, despite the fact that many provinces and the federal government have made efforts to address that issue. Federal-provincial jurisdiction is always a challenge. The federal government wants to ensure it is not stepping into a provincial jurisdiction and provincial governments may be waiting for the federal government to take leadership.

Provinces and the federal government work together often in a constructive way. The leader of the Liberal Party pointed out that when he was premier, the government of Ontario worked with the Liberal government in Ottawa to address issues of inequitable access to safe water and infrastructure in aboriginal communities. The federal-provincial sharing of jurisdiction, of which water is a classic example, does not need to mean inaction or ineffectiveness. It simply needs to be addressed in the development of the strategy. It means working with the provinces to solve this problem.

By the way, I would not consider that to be a great strength of the current Conservative government. Consultation with the provinces in matters such as its crime bill, Bill C-10, and other matters has been missing completely and consultation certainly is necessary in a water strategy such as the Liberals are proposing in this motion.

There is a deficit across Canada in all categories of infrastructure. Municipalities, small and large alike, have gone to the federal government to reinforce that it is the federal government that has the ability to tax. A large percentage of taxes that are levied are federal government taxes, but the majority of infrastructure is the responsibility of municipalities. There is a mismatch.

There is over $1 billion in new funding needed immediately, and $4.7 billion over the next 10 years to upgrade water and waste water infrastructure to existing standards, according to a national report regarding first nations reserves. It would take $4.7 billion over 10 years to address this problem. Those are significant resources especially at a time when Canada is facing a slowdown in its economy, and we have not yet made up the half a million full-time net jobs that we have lost since before the recession.

Let us put this into perspective. What is the cost to the treasury as a result of the reduction in taxes for large and profitable corporations? Their tax rate will go down from 16.5% to 15.5%.

I was at a breakfast this morning with the eminent economist Jack Mintz from Alberta. When asked about corporate tax rates, he said that his view is that they are appropriate right now. They are far lower than those in the United States. He is not calling for additional tax reductions.

The Conservative government is planning a corporate tax reduction from 16.5% to 15.5%. That will cost the treasury well over the $4.7 billion over 10 years that is needed for first nations waste water and drinking water infrastructure.

Rather than further reduce corporate taxes, the government could decide that it would be more important to ensure that first nations living in communities without running water have safe drinking water and waste disposal. Imagine that. Is the government able to rethink its ideological decisions and do what is right to provide justice and equality for our first nations people? I hope so.

What about the government's new approach to crime? It will mean harsher and longer sentences for young people. Criminologists and people working in our criminal justice system say that will be counterproductive.

Many aspects of Bill C-10 are widely criticized by criminologists and public safety professionals. Many Canadians are concerned about the increased criminalization of Canadians and the effect that would have on first nations. The reality is there is a disproportionate number of first nations people in our jails, and it will be even worse when Bill C-10 passes.

We have been arguing that those funds should be put into supports to prevent young aboriginal people in our cities from ending up in prison, as opposed to bringing in longer prison sentences, more prison sentences, and inflexible sentencing.

There are nine former bills rolled into that one bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that the government's crime agenda will cost $5 billion. Let us take that $5 billion and use it to upgrade the water infrastructure in remote first nations communities, those communities where people are carrying their water in buckets. Let us solve that problem rather than throwing more aboriginal young people in jail. I would ask the Conservative members to think about that.

Does it make more sense to add more prisoners to our already overcrowded prisons? Because of overcrowding, 85% of prisoners cannot access the drug treatment programs or anger management programs they are required to do under the conditions of their corrections plan. The government added $120 million over five years for security, for dog teams, ion scanners and security experts. Why? Because overcrowding leads to more criminal behaviour in prison. The government wants to further overcrowd the prisons and dump more money into prison security, and yet it is cutting the drug treatment program in prisons. This is only going to get worse and become more expensive.

We should use the funds that Canada will have to dedicate because of Bill C-10 and the overcrowded prisons to address the lack of access to running water in our first nations communities.

As of last year, 116 first nations reserve communities across Canada were under a drinking water advisory. On average, these drinking water advisories last a year. They cannot drink water for that period of time. What are they going to do? They are going to spend time boiling that water, using expensive diesel fuel or other fuel that in some cases has been flown into their communities, so they and their children do not get sick.

That is completely unacceptable. Too many of these communities have living conditions that are shocking to Canadians when travelling to other countries and seeing some of the communities without running water and waste disposal. We should be shocked into action, knowing that those communities are rampant in Canada.

There are a number of things that have led to this problem. The government's response so far has been to cut Environment Canada's environmental monitoring program. We need to add resources. The answer is not regulation without resources. These communities do not have resources.

I want to just touch on some of the myths about water in Canada. I recently hosted a policy breakfast in Vancouver Quadra with a very eminent, recognized professor at UBC, Dr. Karen Bakker. She is the author of a book about water called, Eau Canada, which has been very highly regarded and has won awards.

Dr. Bakker came to my policy breakfast to talk about five myths of Canada's water. One of them is that we have the most abundant fresh water anywhere. That is not true. There are countries that have more fresh water, and certainly on a volume of water per square hectare, we are not near the top of the pack.

The myth is that our fresh water is clean. In fact, we lag in terms of the cleanliness of our water. Unfortunately we know that some of our industrial developments are contaminating our water. With some of our farming practices, even in the Fraser Valley, in today's era of understanding the threats to groundwater of overusing fertilizer or mismanaging the disposal of sewage from livestock, we still see the contamination of our streams, creeks and aquifers. Canada's water is not as clean as Canadians would like to think.

We also think our waste water is being treated before it goes back into the environment, as it should be. According to Dr. Bakker, Canada has nothing to be proud of in terms of our waste water treatment standards.

There is a myth that our water is well-regulated and unfortunately that is also untrue. When I was the minister of environment in British Columbia, I discovered that British Columbia was called the wild west for groundwater because there was absolutely zero regulation of that water. Anyone could put a well of any size anywhere and extract water from the ground without any regulatory oversight or rules. One of the things I was able to do as a provincial minister was to introduce the first-ever groundwater regulations in British Columbia.

Last, according to Dr. Bakker, people's conception about threats to our water is the export of bulk water to the United States. That is one of the biggest threat. In fact, Dr. Bakker's view is that this is a low risk because the northern U.S. states would prevent it. Their water regulatory regimes are stronger than in Canada. The risk is that Canadians do not understand the depth and extent of the problems with our water supplies.

I want to get back to the situation of first nations bearing the brunt of the challenges of having clean running water and waste water treatment. There is a lack of drinking water and a lack of adequate sanitation and flush toilets.

First nations communities are 90% more likely to lack running water than other Canadian and non-first nation homes. Just think about that. That is simply unacceptable and we cannot allow it. Canada is a country that has a medium rate of income inequality, but it is growing faster than income inequality in the United States. This kind of neglect of first nations' basic health, safety and access to clean water contributes to income inequality. Families are spending their time, effort and resources to do something that I, in Vancouver Quadra, can do by turning on a tap or flushing the toilet. Those families are not spending that time completing high school, or getting post-secondary education or finding a way to have jobs and economic opportunities in their communities.

We do see dramatic differentials in our human and social conditions in first nations communities. The levels of lower economic opportunities, such as health, education, longevity, infant and child mortality, numbers of community members in jail, et cetera, are unfortunately higher in first nations communities. First nations make up 2.7% of the adult population, yet 18.5% of the prison population and that is unacceptable. However, it does not come out of the blue. It ties into our inability or unwillingness as governments to put our shoulders to the wheel and work together to tackle this very basic determinant of the quality of life, which is to have safe running water and waste water treatment.

We need a real strategy, not just a list of problems and goals. We need to have the actions, the accountability for those actions and we need to take care of this problem and we need to start now.

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is hard for me to believe we are talking about Canada and about children who are using a bucket as a washroom. We are talking about sewage going out into open ditches. We are talking about those who do not have clean drinking water. We are talking about Canada where the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider. I see that in my own community.

I want to focus today on the aboriginal students and young people. I am absolutely amazed that there is even a need for this debate, that the government is not rushing out saying that it has not known this was happening and that it is going to go out and fix this right now. The government did that for banks. It fixed the problems of banks and oil companies by giving them huge tax breaks and money.

What are some concrete steps the government could take straight away to ensure that no child in Canada lives in these kinds of conditions?

Ms. Joyce Murray: Madam Speaker, the government could take the $5 billion over 10 years that is required to get the job done and dedicate those funds to do that. It could work with first nations and the provinces to map out the action to do that.

I would add on the fact that first nations children are in this situation, the federal government is responsible for that in many cases. For example, the Tsay Keh Dene in North Interior British Columbia in the Rocky Mountain Trench are a people who used to have 7.5 million hectares that they occupied in their hunting and fishing lifestyle. When government came in to build a dam in that area, it flooded the rich bottom land and the community was moved by the then Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to a 13-hectare swamp land site on the side of Finlay Road, which was a logging road in the area at 72 miles. They were told that this was their new home. They were given stacks of three quarter inch plywood and 2x4s and told that they could build their houses. They had no infrastructure for sewage and water. They had plywood shacks with no insulation. That was the new community for the Tsay Keh Dene thanks to INAC. That is the kind of thing the federal government—

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I must give an opportunity for other members to ask questions.

The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Vancouver Quadra. She has made numerous references to the publication, Eau Canada, specifically to a piece authored by Dr. Bakker, who was clear that Canada needed to strengthen governance of water in Canada.

Does the member support legal standards for drinking water for first nations that other Canadians enjoy?

Ms. Joyce Murray: Madam Speaker, of course I support standards for drinking water, but that is only the beginning.

A federal government years ago moved first nations out of their traditional territory and put them into small reserves that were totally unsuitable. It disrupted the ecologies of the game and fish that were the basis of their livelihoods. The government has a far greater responsibility than to just say that there will be some standards.

To go back to the people of the Tsay Keh Dene, after a few years of trying to live in these uninsulated shacks with no services, having to drive down the road to get buckets of water out of the creek, they just moved out and went back into the forest to try to live in their historic way again. It was completely untenable to live in the reserve.

How many of our first nations are in that very same situation because the representatives of the people of Canada took those kinds of actions and dismissed and denied their rights?

Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. member. However, this is not just an issue for aboriginal people in Canada, although it is a crisis in their communities, it is also a pan-Canadian issue and an environmental issue, which will not get the attention it needs if the government continues to cut Environment Canada, putting water inspection at risk.

We understand that the frontbench of the Conservative government did the same thing when it was the frontbench of the Harris government in the province of Ontario. It cut water inspection there and that led to the tragedy of Walkerton, which is known to this day. We will look very closely at whether the government will take the issue of water seriously.

Her party was in government for 12 years. Why did it not address this issue? How can the House really believe that the Liberal Party will be serious about this issue now when it certainly was not on its agenda when it was in government and could have actually done something about it.

Ms. Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader very wisely called for this to be a debate about how to move forward on a critical issue. If the member wants to talk about the past, I could ask why the leader of his party was the one responsible for bringing down a Liberal government that had actually consulted with first nations and consulted with the provinces over the course of a year and a half and come up with the Kelowna accord to address this very issue? It was his leader and his party that undermined that accord and they should take responsibility for that.

Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that the issue of access to drinking water, social housing and the infrastructure to support all of that is a priority for Canada. However, several conditions created by the Liberals continue to undermine access to drinking water, as well as the health and dignity of first nations communities. For instance, the Liberals put a cap on federal spending for aboriginal communities, limiting it to a 2% annual increase. As we know, both inflation and aboriginal population growth are higher than 2%. The fact is, the 2% cap translates into declining investments.

Will my Liberal colleague and her party now support eliminating the cap that they themselves established when they were in power?

Ms. Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I know it is not reasonable to expect that the member would have read the Liberal Party platform but that was explicitly in the Liberal Party's platform.

Many things need to be done in Canada by governments but we need to focus here on the specifics of the drinking water and waste water infrastructure that is needed. That is what this motion asks the government to do and the other parties to support. I understand that there are many associated issues.

One of the NDP members talked about environmental issues. I have a whole set of thoughts about how we contributed to the drinking water problems by doing resource developments without proper consultation and planning, and we continue to do that. For example, we are seeing a northern gateway pipeline proposal where first nations are saying that they were not consulted on it. Consultation is important. Preventing water related problems from resource development is critical. Replenishing our forests where they are being devastated by global warming related infestations, like pine beetle, is critical for hydrology.

There are many things we can do on the environmental level and on the social level, as the member just pointed out, with education, but we need to put the money for this infrastructure on the table, consult, get some action, get some timelines and get this done.

Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in adding my voice in support of my hon. colleague's motion to improve water facilities in first nations communities. I thank him for demonstrating his party's willingness to work with all parliamentarians to advance an issue that has been a priority for members of this side of the House since first forming government in 2006.

I can assure the opposition that the Conservative government shares this commitment to ensuring that all first nations residents will have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water. We recognize that access to safe water, the efficient treatment of waste water and the production of sources of drinking water on first nations land is critical to ensure the health and safety of first nations people.

This has been repeatedly demonstrated through our repeated investments and in partnership with first nations communities all across this country. Our government has made access to safe drinking water and effective waste water treatment on reserves a national priority.

Between 2006 and 2013, our government will have invested approximately $2.5 billion in water and waste water infrastructure in first nations communities. These funds have been put to work under Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's capital facilities and maintenance program, as well as the first nations water and waste water action plan and Canada's economic action plan.

These investments have steadily increased the effectiveness of water services for first nations people and, of course, for first nations communities. In making these investments to address water challenges on reserves, our government has also made it a priority to work in partnership with first nations people to ensure they fully benefit from these investments and their voice is heard.

I will use the example of the Moose Deer Point First Nation in Ontario. Our government invested $18 million toward the community's new water treatment plant. That water treatment system featured an intake and a wet well that also includes a slow sand-filtered treatment. This system enabled water production that meets the guidelines of Canadian drinking water quality.

Thanks to investments by the Moose Deer Point First Nation, the Government of Ontario and our government, local residents now have a new recreation and health centre. By investing in the health and wellness of first nations communities, we are also helping to stimulate the local economy and open up opportunities for community members to enjoy fitness activities close to their own homes.

Our government has invested in 17 capital infrastructure projects throughout the Atlantic region to achieve both social and economic progress. While these funds are primarily targeted at water and waste water infrastructure, they are also helping to fund road construction and road maintenance, plus emergency management, such as the purchase of new fire trucks, which also depend on a reliable supply of water.

All of these investments in community infrastructure for first nations are helping to stimulate economic growth, foster sustainable first nations communities and support stronger, safer and healthier communities.

The Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation in Newfoundland and Labrador is receiving over $7 million to facilitate upgrades to its waste water collection and for the design and construction of new mechanical sewage treatment plants. This investment has enabled the community to improve its waste water disposal, while creating over 1,600 hours of employment.

On the opposite side of the country, the White River First Nation in Yukon Territory is benefiting from design changes in two treatment plant systems to help temper water correctly, as well as new on-line chlorine analyzers. These improvements are empowering first nations groups to provide clean, safe water to all people in their communities.

The Iskut First Nation in British Columbia has taken advantage of our government's $1.4 million investment to enhance the drinking water system in that community by constructing ultraviolet and chlorine disinfection systems as well.

Then there is the example of the Dene Tha' First Nation in Alberta, which opened its Chateh Water Treatment Plant earlier this year. The new plant is equipped with membrane filtration, the latest in water filtration technology. This new technology goes beyond the conventional plant filtration and delivers quality that surpasses the requirement of current standards.

Construction was completed on a new raw water reservoir and the water intake pipe was also replaced on this reserve. Repairs were also completed on the existing water plant, the fire pump and water main to optimize the existing plants.

The Government of Canada contributed $11.8 million to this initiative from the $1.4 billion investment for aboriginal peoples under Canada's economic action plan. However, it was the work and the planning at the community level that really made this project happen. The community leaders and residents of the Dene Tha' recognized that in addition to ensuring safe, clean drinking water, infrastructure projects like this bring forth other benefits. They provide opportunities for skills development and meaningful jobs. They help to spur economic growth, laying the foundation for long-term prosperity.

The Black Lake and Fond du Lac communities of the Denesuline First Nation in Saskatchewan also reaped the benefits of our government's $18 million investment in two new sewage systems.

Likewise, the Piapot Cree First Nation has benefited from partnerships with the federal government. Our $4.2 million investment in the community has resulted in the expansion of its water treatment plant, including the building of a new well, increased building and reservoir size, and the development of new treatment equipment that carries out reverse osmosis.

In Manitoba, the water and sewer project at Fisher River First Nation has been completed, generating positive results for local residents. It consists of a new water treatment plant, a new lagoon, water distribution and sewage collection piping, as well as multiple trucks. Again, the benefits extend beyond immediate improvements to public health to include economic development opportunities for the people of the Fisher River First Nation.

Another inspiring example of the power of partnerships is the water treatment plant at Kahnawake in Quebec. The community's water treatment plant is truly an outstanding facility that meets the needs of this community's growing population.

I could cite further examples all across the country. The stories I have outlined underscore the power of partnerships and what we can achieve when we work together toward common goals. Partnerships also acknowledge that responsibility for providing water and waste water services to first nations is shared among band councils and the federal government.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada provides funding and advice regarding the design, construction, operation and maintenance of water and waste water facilities. It also sets standards through protocols and provides funding for training staff, such as water treatment plant operators. However, the hands-on, day-to-day business of water and waste water management rests with the communities. That is why we must work together.

Our long-term goal is to do more than just improve water quality. We also want to increase the capacity of first nations communities to manage and operate water and waste water services, plus, develop skills to design and construct facilities in accordance with established standards.

Through initiatives such as the circuit rider training program, which other speakers have highlighted, the number of first nations operators who are certified or in training toward certification has steadily increased.

The extension of the first nation water and waste water action plan continues to support water and waste water treatment facility construction and renovation, as well as the operation and maintenance of these facilities, the training of operators, and related public service activities on reserve.

In budget 2010, the Conservative government recognized the need to continue to support first nations communities in the provision of safe water treatment. We allocated an additional $330 million to extend the first nation water and waster water action plan for two more years.

That funding is in addition to the annual departmental allocation of approximately $200 million and the $187.7 million over 2009-11 under Canada's economic action plan.

Of course, there are challenges that remain. These challenges will require the concerted and co-operative effort of all parliamentarians. This was reinforced by the national assessment of water and waste water systems in first nation communities. As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development acknowledged at the time of its release, more needs to be done, especially in capacity building and monitoring.

I would point out that this is the first time that a national assessment of this scope has ever been commissioned by a federal government. It is a reflection of our commitment to transparency and accountability. The national assessment is an unprecedented reference tool that will support our work going forward. We have developed a response plan to address the findings and recommendations of that report.

The response plan is built on current programs and initiatives to improve on-reserve drinking water. We will implement this plan in partnership with the first nations communities. Our government will continue to work with first nations by investing in infrastructure, monitoring and capacity. Work is currently under way to address 15 high risk water systems this year. On infrastructure alone, our government plans to invest in an additional 57 water systems by fiscal year 2015, a very ambitious but doable project. In addition, we will continue to invest in capacity building, which the report highlighted is a major challenge in maintaining effective water and waste water systems.

We also recognize that legislation is required to ensure that first nations have the same protection regarding safe water as other Canadians already have. With the introduction of Bill S-11, we were already well on our way to achieving that goal prior to the last election. As a result of the dissolution of Parliament on March 26, 2011, the proposed safe drinking water for first nations act died at committee on second reading in the Senate. That was certainly not our wish.

I can assure members that this was only a temporary setback. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and his officials have been engaged in a dialogue on safe drinking water with first nations. With the benefit of that input, the minister will reintroduce legislation to ensure that first nations have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water. The opposition has no reason to doubt that the Conservative government will continue to make safe drinking water and effective waste water treatment on reserves a national priority, from coast to coast to coast.

I urge all members of Parliament to work with the Government of Canada to accelerate the progress we have already made on this very important file.

Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have seen where their priorities lie. Perhaps there was one bill that did not pass because of the election, but the government began by focusing on omnibus bills, such as the one on crime, for example, instead of presenting concrete measures to fix aboriginal issues.

I have a specific question. This morning, I heard that the government supported the Liberal motion. Will the government still support it, even with the amendment? And will the government commit to taking tangible action and putting its heart and soul into fixing the problem, and not just for the photo ops or for scoring political points at the expense of aboriginal peoples?

Mr. Ray Boughen: Mr. Speaker, is only fair to say that there are many responsibilities, many requests, many issues to deal with in government. Certainly, ensuring there is safe water for aboriginal folks is a top priority of this government.

We would be wrong to suggest that no other issues are before Parliament; there are many issues. Today we are looking at the safe water issue, and we are working very hard to ensure that safe water is a way of life on all reserves from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing to take from the intent of today's motion and debate, it is where we go from here. One not uncommon question in infrastructure investment once something is built is how it continues to provide for the community going forward in terms of operations and maintenance. If we look at Kashechewan, the infrastructure existed. While we can debate whether it was the right plant in the right place, one thing that the report said was truly lacking was training for the operators of that plant.

Does my colleague think that even before any government makes a commitment to bricks and mortar and to working toward the development of infrastructure, there has to be a training component and human resource development so that these issues and problems can be addressed with local answers and initiatives?

Mr. Ray Boughen: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at that issue very carefully. In presenting the bill to the House, we wanted to make sure we covered as many options and bases as possible. In the discussion here, we are suggesting that the work on clean water will provide many opportunities for skill developments. We are looking at having first nations people manning their own operations, being trained how to handle water and waste water to make it safe. The development will result in many meaningful jobs and help to spur the economy, because it will offer employment to people who may not be employed at the time the training happens. There will be economic growth helping to lay a foundation for long-term prosperity of the many first nations people who will be working on water treatment.

Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Assemblée des Premières nations du Québec et du Labrador passed a resolution to explore regulatory development and that it in fact reconfirmed the resolution in September of this year. The Atlantic Policy Congress passed a similar resolution.

Could the member for Palliser enlighten the House as to whether other first nations have been consulted in the development of this legislation in the way those two bodies have?

Mr. Ray Boughen: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, I will share this with the House. Since 2006, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Health Canada have engaged with first nations and first nations organizations at the provincial and territorial level to develop a framework that will allow all first nations people access to water treatment systems and to make sure that the project moves forward.

When the bill was crafted, this issue was taken into consideration and it has been addressed.

Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member opposite for this marvellous display of actions, measures and programs to help aboriginals and first nations. However, the 2011 Auditor General's report states that there are still many gaps and that they are related to communication and the transfer of power, authority and freedom that would allow first nations to take action in their own communities. In the end, despite all the steps that have been taken in the past, we have not seen any progress in term of children's health and the safety of waste water management infrastructure.

How can we believe that the government will really take action to make drinking water accessible to families, women and children so that first nations can operate freely in terms of federal programs?

Mr. Ray Boughen: Mr. Speaker, as we said earlier in the presentation to the House, government cannot solve all ills of society in one move and, certainly, we acknowledge that much has to be done in this Parliament to help the first nations and that we have to work together to ensure safe drinking water and the disposal of waste water.

What happened prior to the introduction of this bill is water under the bridge, if members will pardon the pun. We certainly cannot go back and fix that. What we will do is move forward and deal with the issues that are current today and tomorrow.

Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in addition to thanking my colleague for all of the information he has provided, I would like to ask how the government is working with partners to improve water quality across first nations.

Mr. Ray Boughen: Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware that the only course of action that really works well is partnerships. When we have strong partnerships, things happen.

We are looking at increased access by first nations to water systems, and first nations folks are talking about the work that will eventually move to 375 operators, all of whom will be trained people.

That is part of the answer to ensuring there are partnerships and like-thinking and designs that will carry things forward. Indeed, waste water projects will affect 36,000 people in a positive manner.

That will all be part and parcel of the bill when it is tabled here in the House.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, being a member of Parliament from Manitoba and having had the experience of being in the Manitoba Legislature for a number of years, there are few issues that really touch a person as much as the fundamentals of being able to live.

There is a certain expectation, I believe, that Canadians have as a whole in terms of normal living standards. Year after year would go by and we continue to have this outstanding issue on the quality of water for thousands of Manitobans.

I believe, at the end of the day, that there is no political party in this Chamber that can escape the issue of blame for not doing enough. All political parties have to take some responsibility. When we talk about the children in northern Manitoba and the importance in terms of getting them that healthy commodity of water, we have had administrations of all political stripes attempt a solution. Ultimately, in some ways, there has been some success, but it has been very limited success.

There has been a great deal of frustration because there is a sense that governments are not doing enough to provide what is an absolutely essential service, which is to have access to water. Imagine people living in a northern rural community where they have to exit their homes and go to a lake or a river with a pail to scoop up some water to be brought home, so that they can get rid of waste or have it to boil Kraft dinner, for use in doing dishes, or having that drink, or having it available to mix with kool-aid packages, or whatever it might be.

A vast majority of Canadians have very little understanding and, I would argue, very little appreciation of the degree to which individuals who do not have that simple access to whatever have to go through. In other words we can sympathize. There is no doubt that we can sympathize with what is happening. However, can we really empathize with what is happening in these rural communities, not only in Manitoba but throughout our country?

My focus, of course, for now is on the province of Manitoba. About a year ago, the Winnipeg Free Press, which is one of Manitoba's most read papers, did a fairly decent story on the issue. I believe it was on the reserve at Red Sucker Lake and that area. It drew a lot of attention to the issue.

The reason why I raise that is because I believe we all have somewhat of a role and responsibility to educate. Through that education, I believe the more people who are aware of the situation, the greater the need will be to try to get this issue resolved.

I have had the opportunity in many different forums to enter into discussions about the quality of life in rural Manitoba, particularly up north, and with issues dealing with food. I introduced a private member's bill back in the Manitoba Legislature suggesting that we need to have one price for milk because of how important milk is to the children up north. There was a feeling that we needed to make it affordable because quite often pop could be bought for less than milk. There is a very low consumption of milk products, nowhere near the degree to which people in northern communities could or should be drinking milk. Price does matter.

We need to get into these types of discussions with our constituents because most people believe that every home in Canada has access to running water. If they want water, they just go to the tap, turn it on and drink it.

Most people would be quite surprised to find out that there are 100-plus communities in this country that do not have the ability to turn on the water at the kitchen sink and use it at their discretion. That is why I appreciate media outlets like the Winnipeg Free Press highlighting the seriousness of the issue.

This begs the question: What should be happening? It is not like this is a new issue. This issue has been around for years. As I indicated at the beginning of my comments, all political parties have dropped the ball to a certain degree.

With the motion today, we are trying to raise the ante. We are saying that the Government of Canada needs to recognize that it is now time for the government to act, even though many would argue that the government should have acted yesterday. This opposition day provides a wonderful forum for the government to clearly state on the record that it will put in some timelines, that it will make a commitment as to how it will approach this issue.

The leader of the Liberal Party referenced his visit to a rural community in Ontario where he saw first-hand the impact of no water coming out of a tap. Being so touched by that, he went back to the Ontario Legislature in Toronto and said something had to be done. He took the initiative to work with the federal government in order to make a difference for the communities he represented as premier of the province of Ontario.

I, if not all members in this chamber, would recognize this action as someone recognizing just how serious the issue was. The Constitution and treaty agreements clearly illustrate that it is not an issue involving provincial jurisdiction, yet he felt something had to be done. In working with the federal government, he was able to at least address a part of the issue.

I understand that the member for Toronto Centre did get a chance to meet with Premier Selinger, who has been the Premier of Manitoba for a couple of years. He is very familiar with the northern caucus, which is made up of all New Democratic MLAs.

Manitoba has put this issue on the table. From what we understand, the Government of Manitoba recognizes the problem and it wants to ensure that rural communities, reserves and others do have clean running water as all Canadians expect.

The province of Manitoba is prepared to work with Ottawa. We know the leadership within aboriginal communities is strong. There is no shortage of individuals within our first nations who do not feel passionate about this issue because, in good part, they live it. They are constantly dealing with this particular issue. I would suggest that they are the major stakeholders in this. Some consultation is needed to work in co-operation with our aboriginal leaders. We have to broaden it out a bit more to look at the stakeholders.

The time has come for the federal government, through this motion, to play a stronger role. We have argued this for the last number of years as a political entity in the House. At the end of the day, we need the federal government to recognize the leadership role that it has to play in resolving this issue because, in good part, resources matter. If the resources are not there in order to allow this clean flowing water into our rural communities, it will not happen.

If the Government of Canada decides not to play that leadership role, there is a good chance the conditions in many of these communities will not improve. That is why we would ultimately look to the government in Manitoba's case. I have not canvassed all of the provinces that would be impacted. I suspect most provinces would have concerns within their own areas. I am sure all provinces share the same concern with respect to the availability of clean drinking water. However, from Manitoba's perspective, the major stakeholders are at the table. At the very least, they now want to see leadership coming from the House.

This opposition day does allow the opportunity for us as legislators to raise what we believe are important issues for our nation. Our first opposition day dealt with suicide. As a whole, people were quite relieved to see the discussion that had taken place. I would suggest this is one of those issues that a great majority of Canadians would see as the right thing to be talking about today.

However, to talk about it is one thing; to act on it is another. It is the government of the day that ultimately has to take action as we in the opposition will hold it to account. If in fact the government takes action by coming to the table and demonstrating leadership that will make a difference, I will be one of the first to applaud.

Again, in my province I know that it is doable. It is doable because the will is there in the minds of all the stakeholders. The only one we need to gauge to see where it is at is the federal government. Hopefully, in the next number of weeks we will have a better indication in terms of its commitment to provide the resources and leadership necessary in order to make a difference.

It is multi-faceted in the sense that it is not just about building a water treatment facility. I realize that hundreds of millions of dollars is required in order to resolve the problem because it is not just treatment facilities we are talking about. In many ways it has to do with holding tanks or the infrastructure in some of the homes themselves. There is a serious infrastructure deficit in the delivery of water.

If we want to resolve this issue, the only way to do it is for the federal government must come to the table. There are times we could ultimately argue that government needs to cut back on expenditures, but for this issue, there is no excuse for us not to take some form of action.

The attorney general back in 2005 made a series of recommendations for first nations drinking water. That was not the only time, but it was a significant time in the sense that a detailed report came out with a series of recommendations on types of things we needed to do. It was a good indication that we had dropped the ball, or we were not addressing the issue up to that point and we needed to take some action. However, since that period, not much has taken place.

As of 2010, 116 first nations reserves and communities across Canada were under drinking water advisories, with a mean average duration of almost a year, or 343 days. That is thousands of people and a lot of communities. The lack of clean drinking water presents serious health threats. We hear a great deal about that.

I have had the opportunity to meet with individuals from first nations. I get the opportunity more than one might think because quite often a number of people from the reserves will come to live in the beautiful riding of Winnipeg North for a part of the year. This is when I am quite often told about the conditions they have to endure. That is one of the reasons why I feel it is really an important issue for us to deal with.

As this point tries to emphasize, it is very much a health issue. Clean water is something which I believe will ensure we have healthier communities. There are many issues facing our reserves and we would like to see the government take this issue and demonstrate its commitment to try to improve the infrastructure of our reserves, to improve the quality of life on our reserves. This is one of those issues which the government can demonstrate very clearly a sense of commitment to make a difference.

About six weeks ago someone approach me about the apology. He commented that it was nice, but he wanted to see something that was more tangible for now. It was not to belittle what the government had done. There was great recognition for the apology for the residential schools, and it was very well received, but for him, it had gone past that. He said that we needed to look at other conditions. I cannot recall, but I would be surprised if we did not talk about water at that time. Fresh food and products is always a very major issue, but water leads it.

Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his thoughtful remarks. It is clear that we would all agree this is something many of us take for granted, but it is a very important issue that we expect should be addressed. To that end, the Winnipeg Free Press published a series of articles in 2010 and 2011, highlighting the lack of running water in the Island Lake first nations.

Could the hon. member give us his thoughts with regard to the assertions made in that series of articles?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: previous intervention next intervention Mr. Speaker, I have actually been provided one of the articles. It is a fairly lengthy, detailed article that Mia Rabson from the Winnipeg Free Press has written. It states from the beginning:

The chief of a northern Manitoba First Nation says his reserve is nearing a water crisis after more than half of the band's residents were cut off from a primitive water system.

On Monday, Red Sucker Lake Chief Larry Knott ordered residents to stop using water from the holding tanks beneath their homes after four tanks were randomly tested and all contained bacteria. More than 100 houses in Red Sucker Lake use the tanks...

It goes on. It is a very good story and that is why I make reference to it. It is always encouraging when we get media outlets that pick up on those social policies that need to be brought to the public's attention. I enjoyed reading the story but, more important, I hope many people had the opportunity, like my colleague from across the way, to recognize it.

Now it is up to us to do what we can and, from my capacity, to provide accountability and try to encourage and promote, however I can, the government to come into Manitoba and to demonstrate the leadership that is needed to make the difference with providing water.

Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we can talk about this major issue for the aboriginal communities—although it is unfortunate that it is still an issue in 2011. I represent the NDP on the Standing Committee on Health where I am responsible for aboriginal health issues. Every time I ask our witnesses in committee to tell us what the federal government can do to improve health for the aboriginal peoples, who have a number of health problems—often more than the general public—they often tell me the same thing: improve their basic sanitary conditions. This includes better housing to ensure that the problem of overcrowding does not affect public health, and it is also includes improving the drinking water supply.

I am quite pleased that the Liberals have proposed this discussion today. I simply want to agree with the hon. Liberal member that, in 2011, it is high time for the Conservative government to address the drinking water problem in aboriginal communities to ensure that the aboriginal peoples can finally enjoy decent living conditions and flourish like all other Canadians.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would agree. There is the expectation that people living on reserves are entitled to have living conditions that are far more acceptable than what they have today. There is no doubt that, between our first nations and our federal government, we are never going to achieve that unless there is a better sense of co-operation. In that co-operation, the government needs to come to the table with the necessary resources.

Quite often, that also means working with other stakeholders like our provinces. They too have a vested interested. When we talk about poor quality water and we get children who are sick as a result of it, they then go into our health care facilities more often than they would normally have to, or require health care services. Those are provincially administered. There needs to be more co-operation.

First nations people have been very good at hammering it out how important this issue is and they are bringing it to the government. They are saying that they need the help and the government needs to respond. We need a government today to say that it understands the problem, that it is prepared to deal with the problem, that it will work with the Premier of Manitoba and the first nations of Manitoba and that it will resolve it in Manitoba. Then the government needs to apply the principle to wherever else might be needed.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work my colleague has done on this file and in the past in the provincial chamber in Manitoba.

In first nation communities probably one of the most alarming health outcomes is the increase in obesity and diabetes. The member commented about access to dairy products such as milk and just how prohibitive the costs were to buy those products in northern communities.

With illnesses caused by bad water and access to drinking water, does the member think that would also have a significant impact on the occurrence of diabetes and obesity, two alarming health outcomes we have seen in first nation communities over the years?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Over the years that I served as an MLA, I heard some horror stories. I like to use milk as an example because I introduced a bill on numerous occasions, which unfortunately did not pass. However, the health issue is such a big concern on our reserves. Providing clean flowing, drinkable water would make a huge impact in the health conditions in those communities.

I believe there are very few members in this chamber who have an excellent appreciation as to the actual health conditions of the children who live on reserves today. When we talk about FASD, diabetes or obesity, they are serious issues. That is why I believe the Government of Canada needs to be more sensitive to what the leadership of our first nations people are saying and to create the dialogue that is necessary in order to start to resolve some of these issues.

There is no reason why first nations cannot have clean flowing water. There is no reason why the parents of those children should not be able to afford to buy milk more so than pop. It is endless in terms of the examples. It is all about stakeholders getting together and acting on some of the concerns the chiefs and others have sent to Ottawa, to the local legislatures and others.

Mr. Greg Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to stand in this place to speak to this issue.

Perhaps somewhat uniquely, it may be useful not just for the member from the opposition who tabled the motion, but for the one who just spoke to know that I spent eight years of my life living and working in isolated and remote first nations communities as a nurse before being elected to this place. Furthermore, I worked consultatively and in a legal capacity to deal in no small part with a number of issues not just around health, but particularly as they might relate to safe potable drinking water and responsible waste water treatment.

I am glad that the member who tabled the motion has had somewhat of an epiphany. While he was the premier of the province of Ontario and while the Liberal Party was governing Canada at that time, I was actually a nurse working up in those communities. I can assure him that it would have been great if they not only could have acted on a number of these structural challenges that are related to safe, potable drinking water then, but also developed a responsible and strategic policy platform. Had that occurred, I have no doubt we would not be in this situation.

To frame this debate as an intellectual and a practical matter, it is important to understand what has gone on here today from this side of the House, and that is a willingness to be open, frank and transparent about the reality of this debate, where our action is and where it is headed. There are three key areas: capacity, legislation and infrastructure.

I am pleased to report to the House that unlike any other exercise taken certainly in modern political times, in 2006 we started out with a coast to coast to coast consultation with technical experts around the issue of first nations and providing safe potable drinking water and waste water treatment for those communities. We spoke at length with community members. We talked to departmental policy people. That consultation was uniquely and importantly in co-operation with the Assembly of First Nations.

Flowing from that process, a couple of key things happened. I want to speak very briefly to those. First, the minister, as he pointed out today, directed a report to be done. That information was consolidated in a comprehensive way so that we understood what pillars ought to form in an effort to overcome the structural challenges in more than 600 first nations communities. Many of them are isolated and remote. Many of them pose specific technical problems for the development of safe drinking water and waste water treatment, challenges that are not so common to communities in the southern part of the country.

We embrace the findings of the report. We are happy to report that we were acting on those issues long before the report came out. Moving forward, we need to understand the importance of developing capacity, and the ability of the communities to do responsible reporting, monitoring and maintenance of some of these highly sophisticated pieces of critical infrastructure.

I am pleased to report that in the great Kenora riding, our investments have included working with Northern Waterworks and forming partnerships with Confederation College in an effort to ensure that members of these first nations communities can come to a centre in Red Lake, in Dryden and/or in Kenora to get the technical certifications they require to operate these pieces of infrastructure and to do the reporting and the maintenance. In more than a few cases, these first nations folks have gone back to their communities and have been making serious inroads on the reporting, maintenance and operation of these facilities. Ironically, their degree of certification has put them in demand in communities across the great Kenora riding and in fact across the country.

In some instances, the minister and I had an opportunity to travel to parts of Quebec where we saw first-hand first nations communities and municipalities sharing not just the infrastructure itself but the technical capacity which is so essential to provide safe drinking water and waste water treatment.

Earlier this morning we heard the minister speak passionately and eloquently about the legislation that needs to be in place. We have identified from our coast to coast to coast consultations the need to have an enforceable piece of legislation that is more than just a frame of reference for the first nations and aboriginal communities. Also, the government needs to create standards that deal with some of the challenges that the jurisdictions have posed.

For example, our government took a responsible approach to this as we did our analysis of high risk communities. We found that from one province to another there were some parts of the legislation which were not the same. The federal government made a responsible decision at that time in terms of assessing the risk category for those first nations communities. We found that we ought to identify how to fill that vacuum and ensure that first nations communities across the country had a nationalized standard. This would fill a legal vacuum which was identified as a long-standing problem. As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, these problems are not a phenomenon of the last four years; they go back several decades.

I appreciated hearing from the member who tabled this motion earlier today. This issue is so serious that we ought not to be in an exercise of one-upmanship. We have done so much lately, particularly in the last four years, thoughtfully and comprehensively to embrace the findings, for example, of the Neegan Burnside report to address these issues.

Finally, there is no dispute that we need to continue to build on the infrastructure challenges that first nations communities across the region face. I am pleased to report that even before the coast to coast to coast consultation began, we were dealing with some of the findings of a previous government dating back to 2001. We moved very quickly to address some of the critical infrastructure. I have been involved in my region and across northern Ontario. I have attended the grand openings of a number of water treatment facilities and waste water treatment plants.

This is an ongoing cyclical process. At times it is highly technical depending on the kinds of surfaces that may exist in a first nation community. For example, in the Island Lake region and on the tundra, similar to the great Kenora riding, there is a serious challenge in terms of laying pipes in and around or underneath the rock.

I speak from considerable experience. I was the nurse in charge of St. Theresa Point, one of the four communities in the Island Lake region, for some time. I saw first-hand back in the late 1990s and early 2000s that these challenges were there. I had a chance to work through some of the health problems those communities faced as a result of this ongoing challenge. These are things we have to keep in mind.

This will help us organize the discussion around those three things that we have done.

We remained committed from the outset to a five point plan of action for drinking water in first nations communities. Moving forward, it is our intention in the immediate year to address the solid evidence flowing from these reports that tell us which communities need critical infrastructure. We are going to act on that.

In addition, there is a plan for the completion of more than 57 water systems over the next four years.

There are plans to invest in almost 25% of the water systems that the national assessment identified, which I referred to earlier as high overall risk.

By any measure this is an ambitious goal. It is an important investment. I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Party is finally on board with us in terms of these measures. It is important to say that some progress had been made back in the day, and that those governments moved to understand on a community to community basis what challenges were being posed at the time.

What is great about what we have been doing for the last four or five years is that instead of just labelling something as being nationalized, we actually have a national strategy that brings together all of the essential components of the road map moving forward. I spoke about the three pillars, but again by way of review, it is important to understand that technical experts and community members were involved in this. At the time I was legal counsel in the Kenora riding working with community members to help them describe in layperson terms some of the challenges and technical terms. Some of them just wanted to bounce ideas off me, and I was more than pleased to work with them in that regard.

Importantly, perhaps for the first time in a long time, if ever, on a key file like this, we worked in full partnership with the AFN to identify the determinants of a successful road map to deal with ensuring that the ultimate goal would be the kind of safe potable drinking water and appropriate waste water treatment which, I think it is fairly safe to say, a number of Canadians in other communities would not so much take for granted--that would be unfair to say because we have seen situations where these systems have broken down--but certainly would assume would be there for them.

Moving forward, I am more than pleased to say that our additional investments flowing from Canada's economic action plan have supported more than 20 accelerated waste and waste water infrastructure projects and have been essential to the communities they serve. We need to continue to build on that.

It goes without saying with respect to the pith and substance of this motion that this side of the House is in a great position not just in political terms but in terms of the deeply personal and long-standing professional experience to which I have alluded. We must continue to move forward on the trajectory that this appears to be on, which is to work with first nations communities and leadership in combination with other stakeholders which we know to be important, such as the colleges and institutions that provide the certification.

I have worked closely with the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and I know the minister fully understands the importance of training. These are examples of other kinds of investments, and I saw the nods of approval as the minister was speaking this morning, that are absolutely essential components to the development of a successful road map in terms of process and in terms of actual outcomes. They are essential in providing safe potable drinking water and appropriate waste water treatment, and addressing a number of health issues that have arisen in aboriginal communities across the country in the absence, from time to time, of the capacity of the infrastructure to deliver safe drinking water and appropriate waste water treatment.

We want to continue to work with first nations to help achieve long-term sustainability. That is the objective. This is a file that is ongoing. Obviously, in many instances we are talking about isolated and remote communities where there are specific and unique challenges. There is a need for proper planning. For example, in the great Kenora riding, 25 of the 42 first nations communities are isolated and inaccessible by road. The delivery of equipment and materials that are going to build these communities needs to be planned.

In many instances, we are talking about the development of lagoons. Obviously the weather needs to co-operate and I will refer that matter to the Minister of the Environment. I can report, though, that the Kenora riding had a beautiful, long summer that allowed the construction of a lot of important projects, not just for safe drinking water and waste water treatment but building schools, small business centres and police stations in isolated first nations communities.

We are going to continue to work with first nations leadership. We are going to continue to listen to community members, technical experts, stakeholders such as colleges and important people like our friends at Northern Waterworks. I meet with them regularly to ensure that folks in communities have the skill sets not only to operate what is currently in place, but also to ensure that as the infrastructure is modernized they have the technical certifications to operate the new equipment.

Our investments must always be made on the basis of common sense and partnership. Solutions must be developed carefully to ensure that they meet the long-term goals of a community. In some instances, where first nations communities are adjoined or near cities, we must understand the importance of partnerships and shared resources. That means engaging a broader set of stakeholders in some instances.

The minister and I have seen real examples of how this can be successful, especially in light of our trip to Quebec. The scope of this assessment conducted by the federal government included physical inspections of 1,300 water and waste water systems, more than 800 wells and 1,900 septic fields. Inspectors visited nearly 600 communities in nine regions across the country. If colleagues are looking for a threshold test, I would submit that it is met. The national assessment is a vital part of the process to improve water and waste water systems. It is an effort to provide the most accurate account possible of the current state of these systems and their requirements moving forward.

It will help and has helped first nations communities. This government focuses its efforts on priority areas. It points to solutions and helps to ensure the maximum use of taxpayer dollars. It addresses this long-standing issue in a number of first nations communities across the country to bring safe drinking water and responsible waste water treatment to first nations communities.

I am pleased to report that on so many fronts, we are getting the job done. I appreciate the minister's robust efforts and our government's direction to get on this issue early, in partnership with first nations communities, and move forward.

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, generally, members who question a speaker say they listened very carefully to the hon. member's speech. The truth of the matter is I did not. I kind of tuned out after about 15 bromides and platitudes.

This is a call to action for the government. I think I lost count of how many times I heard that the government is going to work with the stakeholders, is going forward with all the plans that it is making, that it is talking to the stakeholders, working in various partnerships, et cetera. I offer insincere apologies to the hon. member for not really listening to his speech, because it is much like the minister who, when written to by my colleague from St. Paul's, indicated, “Regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Government of Canada believes that the aspirational document sets out a number of principles that should guide harmonious and co-operative relationships between indigenous peoples and the states.”

I think my question is relatively simple for the hon. member. When are we going to move off aspirational documents, when are we going to move off aspirational goals, when are going to move off aspirational conversations with various stakeholders and, as the resolution says, get going by the spring of 2012?

Mr. Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I almost need an aspirin after that question, but what is important is I have tremendous respect for the member. I always have had respect for him, but we have agreed to disagree on some issues.

It is unfortunate that he thinks that bromides and platitudes are flowing from a person who has spent the greater part of his professional life living and working in these isolated communities. He can disagree, but to say that the speech that I just gave, or some of the actions are bromides and platitudes, to say that the AFN, which was very adamant about a process that included it in this assessment, is a bromide and a platitude is disrespectful.

I am going to rise above the fray and say there is nothing about this that is a platitude when we look at the money that we have put into waste water treatment plants and water treatment plants across this country since 2006.

I was in those communities a long time before I came into this place and I take this issue very seriously. Major investments have been made. A strategic plan that is already delivering results was prescient to many of the points that these assessments and the reports identified.

I do not think it is a bromide or a platitude when a number of first nations communities in my riding have real technical certificates to operate the sophisticated equipment, which they did not back in the 1990s and early 2000s when that party was in power.

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to get into he said, she said and they did, we did. I want to ask a very simple question.

Every one of us in this room knows that water is recognized as a right by the international community.

I have very young children. I have grandchildren, too. Would I want them growing up in communities where there is not clean water? I would say, categorically, no.

It makes very little difference to me that these little steps are being taken because today we still have children living in deplorable conditions without access to safe drinking water.

Is the government ready to commit all the necessary resources to ensure every Canadian child has access to clean drinking water, which is an internationally recognized human right?

Mr. Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion with which the hon. member put her question. I would respond with a similar degree of passion by saying that the government took no little step in its action when between 2006-07 and 2012-13 budget cycles we have spent approximately $2.5 billion on this file.

If the member wants inspiration, we can give her as many examples as she wants of grassroots-level approaches. People are getting technical certificates. Investments are being made in partnerships with colleges and organizations that can do the training. Facilities are being rehabilitated or replaced to deal with safe drinking water and with waste water treatment.

This government recognized this issue with respect to it international scope and implications. Our goal is to ensure that first nations communities, particularly communities in isolated and remote areas, get the technical support and infrastructure support they need to build the kind of infrastructure that would deliver on exactly what the member is asking.

Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member gave a fine presentation. It was very informative, although some people may not appreciate the information. It may be too technical for them to absorb. We trust they will be okay with it.

I am wondering why the national assessment results demonstrated such a large increase in risk systems when compared to previous reporting done by the department. There seems to be quite a spike there. I am wondering if my colleague might touch on that for us.

Mr. Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the important work that the member is doing with the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

As a leader in his province in education, he appreciates the essential education component that was built into our strategy, in co-operation with AFN leadership.

These are important issues; nobody disputes that. We have the same goals. For the first time in a very long time, we have a comprehensive, substantive plan that is already delivering on the results.

The national assessment has been the most rigorous and comprehensive evaluation of water and waste water systems on reserve ever undertaken. In the two years between July 2009 and spring 2011, engineers inspected many different on-reserve systems, 1,300 water and waste water systems, 800 wells and 571 first nations communities.

What they brought forward had to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner in co-operation with first nations stakeholders. The joint action plan and the water action plan with aboriginal communities across Canada had to be capable, unlike reports we had seen earlier in 2001 which were incomplete and fell well short of what was required.

We are working with haste toward the goal of safe drinking water and responsible waste water treatment.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate because, as many of my colleagues know, water issues are something in which I have a profound interest and have been working on almost since being elected in 2004. Of course, there is perhaps no more urgent water issue in this country today than the quality of drinking water available to our first nations people on first nations reserves.

It is vitally important, in a country like Canada, that no citizen living in a community, however small, be without access to potable water. It is impossible to understand how, in a country like Canada, citizens living in a community would not have access to water for sanitation. We know, and it has been said before in this House today and many times before today, that water is central to proper sanitation. Without proper sanitation, we have outbreaks of epidemics, like H1N1, because people cannot wash their hands or otherwise maintain proper sanitation. Therefore, the issue of quality drinking water and quality water for sanitation is not just a question of having access to the immediate household staple of quality water, it is a question of public health.

I must congratulate my hon. leader for sponsoring this motion today on such an important issue. The impetus for this motion comes from a report released in July 2011 called the National Assessment of First Nation Water and Wastewater Systems. Just by way of background, I will mention that the study covered 97% of first nations. Four first nations chose not to participate in the study but 97% of first nations were covered. Although I am not a statistician, I know that 97% coverage is a very strong sample size.

The study found that if we want to bring first nations drinking water up to standard, we need to spend a fair amount of money still. Even though there have been investments in the past, we need to spend $1.08 billion in construction costs and $79.8 million in non-construction costs to bring all existing systems up to INACs protocol standards. The non-construction costs would involve spending on operator training and the development of various kinds of plans.

Finally, the costs of new servicing, including construction, operation and maintenance costs over a 10 year period are estimated at $4.7 billion. As members can see, there is a need for an infusion of resources if we are to do justice by our first nations people.

I will go back to a 2005 report by the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development , which I read very carefully. From the report, we learned that 460,000 first nations people in Canada live on reserves, that Canada has about 600 first nations communities and that, of those communities, about 78,000 first nations people live in about 90 isolated communities without any year-round road access.

Providing potable water and access to water for sanitation to first nations is not an optional policy choice for the current government or any other government. The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility for the health and well-being of aboriginal Canadians living on first nations reserves. That is without dispute. This fiduciary responsibility includes ensuring that first nations communities have access to safe drinking water.

By way of information, the federal government exercises direct responsibility for first nations drinking water in those communities located south of 60, while the territorial governments do so for communities north of 60.

Again, by way of background, there are two federal departments that are the most directly involved in ensuring first nations communities have access to safe drinking water, one being what was formerly called the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, INAC, and the other being Health Canada. INAC funds the cost of building and maintaining first nations drinking water systems in communities. The department also covers the costs of operating and maintaining these systems, including the costs for training and certifying water system operators. In addition, the department tests source waters that supply first nations drinking water treatment plants. That is very important, and I will get into this a little later.

The efficacy of a water treatment plant depends, not only on the technology in that plant but also on the source water that is feeding that plant. Therefore, it is extremely important that we protect source water in Canada, specifically source water that is very close to drinking water treatment plants.

Health Canada, on the other hand, tests first nations drinking water at the tap. Health Canada works with first nations south of 60 to identify potential drinking water problems, including verification and monitoring of the overall quality of drinking water at the tap, and we are not talking about source water, and reviewing, interpreting and disseminating results to first nations.

Environment Canada is a third department. I said that there were two departments principally involved with the issue of first nations drinking water but Environment Canada is also involved. It is involved in giving advice and guidance in the area of source water protection.

A fourth department that is also involved is Public Works and Government Services Canada. Already we can see that this is a complex problem. Yes, it is a problem of money and a problem of political will but it is also a problem of the structure and the processes of government. I will come back to that a bit later.

What does Public Works and Government Services Canada do? Public Works and Government Services Canada provides Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with technical services on the design of water treatment plants. If the government were putting out tenders to build water treatment plants, obviously this would go through Public Works and Government Services and it would supply some technical specifications. We already have four departments involved.

I mentioned money and money is important. In fact, one of the reasons that first nations were against Bill S-11 was because it proposed a regime for creating regulations to govern drinking water on first nations reserves but there did not seem to be any money attached to that law. A law without the resources to implement the law is not much of a law at all. It is just wishful thinking. I would point out that spending on first nations water needs has not kept pace with the growth of the aboriginal population in Canada.

There is another problem with government when it comes to ensuring quality drinking water on first nations reserves. Yes, there are the four departments. They have complex relationships among themselves. Yes, there is the problem of not having enough money to solve this problem. There is also the problem that it is fundamentally a scientific issue.

Water policy must be based on science. Water policy requires that the government have the scientific resources to identify problems that need to be solved. I talked about how Environment Canada looks after the protection of source waters on first nations communities but it needs to have scientists to do that job properly. What we have seen in the last few years, and even more so at an accelerated pace, is that the government does not seem to have the resources to hire scientists. In fact, the talk at Fisheries and Oceans and at Environment Canada is that not only are scientists not allowed to speak and are muzzled and discouraged from doing their work, but we see that there will probably be, as a result of budget cuts, fewer and fewer scientists working inside Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans.

The atrophied state of federal water science is a component of this problem. It is not something that we notice right off the bat. We said that it was a question of money, of political will, and, yes, it is a question of those things, but when we scratch under the surface we cannot have good water policy, whether we are talking about water on first nations reserves or any other aspect of water policy, unless we have good science.

Here is what is extremely interesting and sadly ironic. There are no laws and regulations governing the provision of drinking water in first nations communities, unlike other communities in Canada. This is a situation where the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to guarantee adequate drinking water to first nations and yet there are no laws or regulations governing the provision of drinking water in first nations communities.

What is even more ironic is that if people are nurses employed by the federal government working in a nursing station on a first nations reserve, or if they are employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs working in an embassy somewhere around the world, they are governed by regulations. The government must provide them with drinking water that is up to standard.

This is not me speaking. It was mentioned by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I will read a passage from his 2005 report:

Under the Canada Labour Code and the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations, every federally regulated employer has to provide its employees with drinking water that meets the standards set out in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Federal employees working in First Nations communities are covered by these regulations.

Is that not ironic? Aboriginal Canadians living in these communities are not covered by regulations but federal employees working there are. I will continue with the quote:

We found that in 2002 Health Canada installed small water treatment units in nursing clinics and health stations in at least 20 First Nations communities that were regularly experiencing drinking water safety problems. This was a result of Human Resources and Development Canada intervention to ensure that federal employees working in these facilities would be provided with safe drinking water as prescribed under the Canada Labour Code.

This is an irony that cannot be allowed to stand much further. This is obviously a glaring problem.

This is a complex issue and there is a scientist, Dr. Hans Peterson, who works in the north and who has dedicated a tremendous amount of time in his career to helping first nations communities solve their drinking water problems. He has found that water filtration is by no means a simple and straightforward matter. It is not a question of just installing, plugging in, and activating a filtration unit. The kind of filtration system a community requires depends on the quality of its source water, which I mentioned earlier.

This comes back to the issue of lack of coordination. In many cases, filtration system designers, who may even be located in an engineering firm in another country, have limited knowledge of the characteristics of source water in the community in question. Obviously, this is ironic.

According to Dr. Peterson, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which was INAC at the time, appeared less than interested in the complexities of the relationship between source water type, filtration system design, and the quality of the treated water at the tap.

In the case of a water treatment plant being built in Saskatchewan, which goes back a couple of years, Dr. Peterson stated:

--INAC’s only criteria for building a water treatment system in Saskatchewan is still an ‘engineering stamp’. To the best of SDWF’s knowledge, and in discussion with the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, engineers have also not been given the opportunity to advise INAC on the most effective systems for different source waters, as INAC is only interested in requesting bids for, and purchasing, specific conventional water treatment systems that are chosen based on the cheapest bid.

It is not just a question of money or political will, it is a question of coordination among the various government departments that have something to say about first nations drinking water.

Again I will quote Dr. Peterson, who in this particular quotation seemed to be pointing to the lack of coordination between Health Canada and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It is an old quotation. He stated:

INAC and HC do not appear to share data for source and treated waters and, as such, are unable to make sound decisions on effective treatment processes--

The list goes on and on.

There was a report published maybe three or four years ago which was published following consultations with first nations communities. What came out of that report was the recommendation that a first nations water commission be created where members of first nations could be brought together to share information relating to the provision of potable water in these communities. To my knowledge, the government has not acted on that recommendation. I think it is a good recommendation. It gets first nations communities involved in decision-making about water treatment in their communities. I would heartily recommend that the government pursue the issue and implement that recommendation.

Lastly, it is very important that the government not take the easy way out. Through legislation and regulation it should not impose provincial drinking water standards on first nations communities because not all provinces have drinking water standards that are at the level of the national drinking water guidelines. By doing so, it would skirt its federal responsibility, which would not be fair to the first nations people of the country.

Mr. Greg Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): previous intervention next intervention Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments at the very end. I thought it was one of the more important parts of his speech. That is exactly what we want to do, which is to develop a federal framework or piece of legislation that the federal government and the first nations communities can count on for enforceable standards.

What I always appreciate, although perhaps somewhat unfairly, and find ironic is when a member of the Liberal Party uses words like “fiduciary duty”.

He mentioned nurses working in those isolated communities. Maybe he was not here when I spoke just prior, but I was actually a nurse working in these isolated communities between the years 1992 and 2006, and have taken my share of distilled bottled water showers when those fragile water systems failed. Therefore, I agree with the member that it is important and that we need legislation.

However, in the absence of real standards that the government and first nations could have counted on then, will the member support our piece of legislation coming forward that, in a profound, meaningful and substantive way, will attempt to bring in regulations for us all to depend on to ensure first nations have access to safe drinking water and appropriate waste water treatment?

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: previous intervention next intervention First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend and congratulate the hon. member on the good work he did in the north in helping to provide health care for our aboriginal brothers and sisters. No doubt he would agree with the quote I read from the 2005 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

In terms of legislation and regulations, we would have to see what that legislation is, what those regulations are. We would have to know if there is money to back up the legislation. We would have to know if first nations communities agree with the legislation, if they feel they have been properly consulted, and again, as a member of the Liberal opposition, I want to avoid any possibility that the federal government would wash its hands of its fiduciary responsibilities for first nations drinking water by having provincial standards apply to these communities.

We need to have the best federal standards apply to these communities. Not only that, our federal standards need to be brought up to EPA standards similar to those in the U.S.

Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when I speak to the first nations in my community, whether it be Kitigan or Barriere Lake, there is just at this point an incredible amount of frustration.

This is a problem that has existed for decades. The Liberal and Conservative governments really have done very little to deal with the situation. Frankly, the people are at the end of their rope. They are impatient and I understand them.

I do support, of course, the principle of the motion, but I would like to hear the member's ideas as to why this extremely urgent issue has not been dealt with adequately in the decades that have transpired.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the experience the hon. member has on this issue by virtue of the fact that he has the Algonquins of Barriere Lake in his community. I have many good friends in that community. I do not know if he knows Dave Nawhegabow, someone I have known for a very long time.

Why have we not resolved this problem to this point? I agree it is very complex and technical. I mentioned that in addition to money and political will, which previous governments have had, the member would have to admit, there is a structural management and coordination problem within government.

It was the report, for example, of the Safe Drinking Water Foundation that helped us uncover that problem. I would hope that the government would address that problem as well as investing more money.

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend the remarks made by my colleague and remind the House of his good work at the environment committee of several years ago which led to the new agreement between the federal government and the provincial government of Alberta, which is now monitoring water and water quality around the Athabasca River and the oil sands. I think folks should be reminded of that.

He did touch on the question of science cuts, which is eerily reminiscent of the cuts we saw, in my case, in my home province of Ontario some eleven years ago. Those cuts, science cuts and water inspection cuts, led to the terrible tragedy of Walkerton, where seven people died and 2,500 people were sick, some of whom are still battling with the terrible diseases that flowed from that tragedy.

What is perhaps most astonishing is that we actually have to remind the government of the urgency to act in this regard. We have a Minister of Finance, a Minister of Foreign Affairs, a President of the Treasury Board, a Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and a smattering of parliamentary secretaries and government MPs who served in the Ontario government and who were held responsible by Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor in his report on the Walkerton crisis.

Why it takes the opposition Liberal Party, and the good work of my colleague here, and our leader to raise the urgency of this matter is all the more astonishing. Perhaps my colleague might take a moment to comment on that sense of urgency.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind words for the work that we both did, and in fact that the Liberals did on the environment committee to raise the profile of an issue which actually had something to do with source water protection, and that was the monitoring of the impact of the oil sands on the Athabasca River watershed.

I travelled with the committee. We went up to Fort Chipewyan, and first nations citizens there were telling us that they feared that their source water was being polluted by deposits of deleterious substances from the oil sands industry.

The lesson of Walkerton teaches us that we need government supervision. Whenever we decide to cut back on government expenditures, we should be very careful not to cut back in areas that affect people's health. We should always give the benefit of the doubt to proper regulation and oversight by government over other considerations.

I would like to end with a little anecdote. We have heard of Walkerton. We have heard of problems in first nations communities. I live in a suburban riding. My riding covers the western tip of the island of Montreal. It is pure suburb. About a month ago all the cities in my riding were told they could not drink the water for four days. Fortunately, everything was okay.

We found out that everything was fine. The municipal authorities reacted very well. I was very proud of Mayor Bill McMurchie of Pointe-Claire and other mayors in the community, including John Meaney. I will say that panic started to set in, in a suburban community on the island of Montreal.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member just answered a question from one of his colleagues who asked why it has taken action by the Liberal Party to bring this to the government's attention when it is such an urgent issue.

I wonder if the member had maybe forgotten that, in fact, his party was in government for 13 years? It had 13 years to deal with this urgent issue, and it did not do it. I would just like the member to respond to that.

As well, the member brought up the issue of the oil sands and the feeling that there was contamination from the oil sands in the water supply. I am sure the member would, in fact, tell the House that the feeling may have been there, but the pollution was not there and the contamination was not there. Could the member comment on that as well?

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the oil sands, the member is forgetting that his government did a 180 degree turn on this issue.

Up until about a year and a half ago, the standard line coming out of PMO and the environment minister's office was that all traces of bitumen found in the Athabasca River were naturally occurring as the result of the oozing of bitumen from the banks of the Athabasca.

The work by Dr. David Schindler, Canada's foremost water scientist and one of the international community's great water scientists, proved through scientific study that there was a problem, and again we are coming back to the science. I would add that that study was not done with federal funds. He could not find federal funds to do the study. He did it on his own; a semi-retired aquatic biologist did the study. We backed him up in committee with our own policy study. As a result, the Minister of the Environment at the time had to get up and do a 180 and tell Canadians that in fact there was a problem in the oil sands.

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Liberals and Conservatives blaming each other for inaction on drinking water on first nations reserves.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the Pacheedaht First Nation in my riding. I met with its representatives last week. They have been waiting for more than a decade for a solution to their drinking water problems. Right now they run a rudimentary system of one pump and a backup. The backup no longer works.

If that fails, there will be an immediate health crisis on the Pacheedaht First Nation. It has had a proposal in to build its own filtration plant with new pumps. The proposal has been with INAC for five months. It is still waiting for an answer.

The last time the pumps broke down, it spent two years on bottled water. In that two years, INAC spent more than twice the amount of money on bottled water than it would have spent to build the filtration plant.

There is a great deal of frustration because the attitude at INAC seems to be that once again they are looking for a feasibility study from the regional district or a private company. INAC lacks confidence in the Pacheedaht First Nation to build and run its own system. This problem could have been solved years ago.

I would ask the member whether it is simply a technical problem or a coordination problem, or is it really a failure to trust a first nation and give it the resources it needs to solve its own problems?

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising that particular case, but I am not familiar with it.

When I say it is not always a matter of political will I am saying yes, there seems to be political will to solve the problem, but the political will cannot just be superficially expressed. In this particular case, the political will should translate into concrete action on the ground.

Yes, first nations peoples need to be involved in decisions regarding their water treatment plants. That is why the idea of a first nations water commission is a good one. I would go even further and say that a first nations water commission should be an umbrella group and that each community should have a water council. Yes, there could be representatives from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Environment Canada, Health Canada, and Public Works and Government Services. We can get people talking and then translate the political will into action.

- - -

Aboriginal Affairs

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today in the House we are debating the question of an effective strategy for clean running water for every single Canadian across the country, and it seems to have the support of all parties as we move forward.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since his party has announced it is supporting this measure, could he outline what he is going to do to ensure there will be clean drinking water for every single Canadian within a fixed time point?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to outline today that the government is willing to take action on this. The government has been taking action over the past several years. We have made significant investments in this very objective because it is important for communities, particularly native communities across Canada.

What is not explicable is why the Liberal Party continually votes against these investments, so I welcome today the Liberal Party's conversion to doing something about this issue.

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we can argue about conversion dates at some other point, but let me draw the attention of the Prime Minister to one particular issue which I think requires a broader solution than the one he is prepared to take on.

The other day I visited the Six Nations reserve, which is the most highly populated reserve in the country. It has a serious drinking water problem. There are 315 homes that have no water supply whatsoever.

At the same time as the Minister of Canadian Heritage is announcing a program with respect to the War of 1812, those people who were there for Canada in 1812 to 1814 have still not had recognition of a large fundamental land claim that speaks to the land that was stolen from them over the last two centuries.

What is the Prime Minister going to do on that issue?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party should know that obviously land claim negotiations in this particular area have been difficult and have been ongoing for some time, but we continue to work to try to get them resolved.

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government has clearly said that this has been going on for centuries. The federal government itself recognized this fact when it made an offer of more than $100 million, which was turned down by the aboriginal negotiators. The Ontario government has agreed to the appointment of a mediator, but the Government of Canada refuses to appoint one.

If the government is serious, why is it not appointing a mediator to work through this major problem?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, negotiations have been ongoing for decades, at least. This government has made offers, as the leader of the Liberal Party said.

The fact of the matter is these are extremely complex negotiations. They are particularly complex given the governance structure on the other side, but we continue to work to try and get this problem resolved.

When they got together this week to sign an historic Memorandum of Understanding for improving the Mohawks/Canada relationship, Michael Ahrihron Delisle Jr., Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs John Duncan, also celebrated the improvement of drinking water - specifically, the completion and opening of the Mohawk community's new $11.4 million water system.

(John Duncan, right, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, speaks with Kahnawake Grand Chief Michael Delisle, left, and Frank Deere, Project Manager for construction at the new Kahnawake Water Filtration Plant, during a tour of the plant on the Kahnawake reserve, south of Montreal, Thursday, February 16, 2011.)

Kahnawake was responsible for managing this large-scale project, which included the expansion of the water reservoir to meet the growing needs of the rapidly expanding community.

"As our community continues to grow, it is essential to maintain our capacity to supply safe drinking water in quantities commensurate with our population," said Michael Ahrihron Delisle Jr., Grand Chief. "For some of our sister communities, this program has been eagerly anticipated, and its implementation is greatly appreciated."

When will the dozens of First Nations communities with bad water, get healthy water - like the rest of Canadians? There was no comforting answer - no promise, from Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan when he introduced the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act.

The Harper government is being challenged to make sure the new legislation is accompanied by adequate resourcing for First Nations who ultimately will be responsible for regulations on reserve dealing with water treatment etc.

Treaty 7 Grand Chief Charles Weaselhead:"It's a good first step. . .But regulations without capacity and financial resources to support them will only set up First Nations to fail. . .We must address the capacity gap as well as the regulatory gap. The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act alone cannot and will not ensure the safety of First Nations drinking water."

The Aboriginal Affairs Minister's silence on funding was deafening! The estimation is that $1.2 billion is needed to bring water systems in First Nations communities up to the federal government's own standards. Then there will be the need to maintain and the systems. That's another $4.7 billion.

- - -

Harper Government Introduces Updated Legislation to Protect Drinking Water in First Nation Communities

OTTAWA, ONTARIO (February 29, 2012)

The Harper Government is taking action to ensure First Nations have access to safe and reliable drinking water. The Honourable John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, announced the introduction of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act aimed at helping to protect drinking water on First Nation lands.

"At the recent Crown–First Nations Gathering, First Nations and our Government committed to working together to support strong, healthy First Nation communities," said Minister Duncan. "The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act ( http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... 485&file=4 ) is a key milestone in making this a reality and a vital step towards ensuring First Nations have the same health and safety protections for drinking water in their communities as other Canadians."

Between 2006 and 2013, the Government of Canada will have invested approximately $2.5 billion in water and wastewater infrastructure and related public health activities to support First Nation communities in managing their water and wastewater systems. A total of 130 major water and wastewater projects were completed between 2006 and 2010. Almost 120,000 individuals living in these First Nation communities have benefitted from these investments.

"Improving water conditions in First Nation communities is an issue of great concern for our Government. I am pleased that proposed legislation is moving forward as it will provide us with another mechanism to help protect the health and safety of First Nations across the country," said the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health.

While provinces and territories each have their own safe drinking water standards, there are currently no legally enforceable standards and protocols governing water quality on First Nation lands. The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act would allow the federal Government, in collaboration with First Nations, to develop federal regulations for access to safe drinking water, and to ensure the effective treatment of wastewater and the protection of sources of drinking water on First Nation lands.

"This proposed legislation lays the foundation for the future work of First Nations and the Government to work together on developing regulations that will better safeguard community drinking water systems. We are looking forward to starting this important work, and believe that future generations will benefit once these regulations are in place," said Grand Chief Cameron Alexis of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation and Grand Chief of Treaty 6 (Alberta).

"First Nations will be able to look forward to having the same protections that other Canadians have around the provision of drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of wastewater in their communities. This is not only an important health and safety issue, but will help build confidence in our infrastructure and help create a better climate for investment," said Chief Lawrence Paul of Millbrook First Nation and Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat Co-Chair (Nova Scotia).

The Governments of Canada and Ontario are pleased to announce that four First Nation communities will participate in the Canada-Ontario First Nations Pilot Initiative to Improve Drinking Water Quality. Through this joint initiative, the Government of Canada and Province of Ontario are working with First Nation partners to explore and assess innovative, alternative and proven processes and drinking water servicing solutions.

"With this important project, and the recent introduction of water and wastewater legislation, our Government is delivering on its commitment to support strong and healthy First Nation communities," said the Honourable John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. "The collaboration between the federal and provincial governments and the participating First Nations is an important step to improve access to clean reliable drinking water, particularly in smaller, rural communities."

The communities selected are Alderville, Lac Seul (Whitefish), Munsee-Delaware and Zhiibaahaasing First Nations. The selection criteria required that the communities:

-- have water systems that were assessed at either a high design risk in the National Assessment of Water and Wastewater Systems in First Nations Communities - 2009-2011 or did not have a communal drinking water system

-- be able to demonstrate community support for the project

-- submit projects that presented an opportunity to explore an alternative servicing model for drinking water treatment and distribution

"Ontario is committed to helping First Nation communities improve the quality of their drinking water," said Jim Bradley, Ontario Minister of the Environment. "Innovative approaches can play a key role in making this happen. We are hopeful that the drinking water solutions for these communities will provide options for other small and remote communities in the future."

The projects will include central management of all new and existing drinking water assets. Depending on proposals received from industry, the design and technology solutions may include such options as:

-- installation of new point-of-entry treatment systems in a heated enclosure outside of homes -- improvements to existing infrastructure -- purchase of new water delivery truck(s) -- installation of pre-fabricated water treatment plant(s) -- other approaches deemed appropriate through the Request for Proposals processes

Point-of-entry devices treat all water distributed to the home. Pre-fabricated water treatment plants treat water for multiple homes while reducing capital costs.

The Government of Canada is providing up to $5 million in funding to cover the full costs of capital infrastructure and, in addition, at least three years of operations and maintenance funding for the projects.

The Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation (OFNTSC) is also supporting this initiative through the provision of technical support to First Nations and Tribal Councils.

"The OFNTSC is pleased to support these selected First Nations, in their attainment of water treatment systems that will deliver quality drinking water to homes," said Bob Howsam, Executive Director, OFNTSC. "It is through collaborative projects such as this one, that First Nations can build capacity and foster technical self-reliance for their respective communities."

The Government of Ontario and the Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation will provide technical support and training.

The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, met this day at 6:45 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

The mandate of this committee is to examine proposed legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal people of Canada generally. Today, we will continue to hear testimony relating to Bill S8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

Although water and waste water operations and systems are generally the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments, responsibility for drinking water on reserve is shared between the federal government and the First Nations. Federally, three departments are primarily responsible for delivering safe drinking water on reserve: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Health Canada and Environment Canada. First Nations communities, through their chief and council, are responsible for the design, operation and maintenance of their water systems, for which they assume 20 per cent of the costs.

This evening, we will hear from witnesses from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne.

Members of the committee, would you please join me in welcoming our witnesses: from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Chief Robert Chamberlin, Vicepresident; and, from the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Michael Mitchell, Grand Chief, John Adams, Chief, and James Ransom, Director. Witnesses we look forward to your presentations.

Chief Robert Chamberlin, VicePresident, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs:

My traditional name is Ouadee. I am the elected chief of the Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwaw-ah-mish First Nation of Gilford Island. I am here in my capacity as Vicepresident of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. I have asked you all to hear the words that I am speaking from my heart on behalf of our people and on behalf of the all the First Nations in British Columbia. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs was created in 1969. We have been at the forefront of a charge for a fair and just settlement of the land question in British Columbia.Today, we have 104 First Nations as members. I think this is a significant number in British Columbia and a significant number nationally as well. We have previously presented. I have been here before, and I will speak largely on the same topics.

I want to advise you that we will speak of the Constitution of Canada. We are also going to speak about the Supreme Court of Canada and its rulings. We will also make reference to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. I outline these at the outset so that we can see the seriousness of what we are basing our discussions on as First Nations. These are not simple policies; they are things that define this country and, within that context, define your role as senators within the democracy that we find in Canada.

I implore you to reach inside yourselves to ensure that you step up and fulfil your role in the broadest possible sense and hear what it is that First Nations are bringing to your attention today.

I will also make reference to the expert panel that toured Canada a number of years ago, a wellresourced effort by the federal government to gather information relating to the conditions of water and to gather First Nations input on a way forward. I will talk of the preconditions. I will also speak of the Assembly of First Nations' First Nations Water Technical Advisory Group, which I participated in for about three years, on behalf of the BCAFN.

I will also speak of the experience of the Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwaw-ah-mish people of Gilford Island and the challenges we faced in securing safe drinking water. We enjoyed a donotconsume order for 10 years. That is a shame, in this day and age, within Canada.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs has a resolution that causes me to be in front of you today. Resolution 2010-36 called for abandonment of Bill S11 in its current form.

I know that we are here today to speak of Bill S8, but, with such minute changes in the bill, the issues are largely the same. It must be severely amended, as the Union has pointed out a number of times, so that it does not infringe on the Aboriginal title and rights of First Nations of British Columbia and of Canada at large.

It is so flawed that we feel it needs to be scrapped, and we need to go back to the drawing board.

With the majority that Prime Minister Stephen Harper enjoys, it is within his grasp to do what is right, and I implore all of you to assist him in striking down this bill.

We understand that this bill was introduced on February 29, and we had hoped that it would have incorporated the recommendations that came out of Bill S11. Sadly, they are missing.

I want to deliver a clear message to the Senate committee that we are not headed in the right direction with Bill S8, and we absolutely need to start over.

You must realize that there are zero guarantees that First Nations could meet regulations that would be developed under the bill without adequate guaranteed capacity. This is an item clearly found in the report that the expert panel delivered to Canada.

Further, the bill infringes upon constitutionally protected Aboriginal title rights and treaty rights, fails to recognize First Nation authority or jurisdiction and does not provide for accountability to First Nations, the very people the bill is supposed to help.

The problems that we find with drinking water in Canada are not due to a lack of legislation but to a lack of adequate resourcing from the federal government to make the necessary changes to deliver safe drinking water. Safe drinking water for First Nations in Canada, in 2012, should not be an issue.

We are concerned that if this bill does pass, it will set up us for failure. The current funding model of 80/20 does not give us the resources that we need. It is far too well known that many First Nations that are living in poverty and so forth will not be able to adequately come up with the balance of the money.

It must be fully resourced. We need the resources to ensure that the infrastructure is up to speed. We need resources to ensure that the capacity needs are met, that we look to invest in our people for a longterm solution and that we look to include First Nations in a meaningful, clear way, guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings about the consultation requirements that the federal government is meant to defend the honour of the Crown with.The expert panel was very clear in the fact that Canada needed to close the resource gap, and we have not seen anything to that measure. Some monies came out of stimulus package a number of years back that were tagged along for First Nations. I understand some money has been identified in this last budget to assist. However, it is nowhere near what the expert panel has described as what kind of resourcing would be necessary. When it recommended several billion dollars to meet the need, it showed the Canadian government's contribution in excess of $100 million is still woefully inadequate.

To offload the responsibility to First Nations without having proper equipment and capacity is not in the best interests of Canada.

We respect the fact that there are some First Nations in Canada that have been working with the federal government in developing this. We are by no means calling into question their authority or their opinion or offering judgment upon it.

I am here to tell you that in British Columbia we reject Bill S8, just as we rejected Bill S11. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs as a resolution has submitted a number of letters to the government clearly and categorically explaining the issues we have.

When Bill S8 comes out without having any kind of meaningful change encompassing our recommendations and direction, it flies in the face of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The UN declaration is something that Canada purports to the UN that they uphold and support. The actions that the government is taking do not match the words. To me, it underlines the hollow gestures that Canada continues to enjoy by recognizing the UN declaration without bringing it to the ground in a meaningful way in which First Nations can engage and look after our citizens, our children and our generations to come. These are not lofty goals but things that each and every one of us has deep in our hearts for our children and our grandchildren. We as leaders of First Nations must stand up at every opportunity and explain that the government's words, if they are hollow, need to be exposed to Canadians and to the world.

Bill S8 was written without consultation and a combination of all First Nations in Canada. It does not recognize the existing authority and jurisdiction of First Nations over their lands. It does not guarantee that First Nations will have access to safe drinking water. There is no commitment in the bill to provide certainty of adequate engagement and involvement of First Nations in the development of regulations. Bill S8 states regulation will supersede existing First Nation laws except where there is a selfgovernment agreement recognized by federal statute. Given that many First Nations do not have such an agreement, Bill S8 represents and undermining of First Nation selfdetermination and authority.

Although the bill includes a loose commitment in the preamble of the First Nation input to the development of the regulations, there is still no capacity provided for this development. Further, this commitment is top down and does not actively coordinate authority. Bill S8 included an extremely weak and unacceptable nonderogation/abrogation clause that still permits infringement on constitutionally protected rights. This is unacceptable.

The Constitution of this country is the foundation of the democracy. For us to enact a bill that will be clearly be in defiance of that is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to every Canadian and to everyone in this room as a senator, in my humble opinion.

I want to talk about Gilford Island and our 10 years of a donotconsume order. Once we were granted access to federal media and your feet were in the fire, then we got some action for our village. Along the way, there was a pilot project where we ran three reverse osmosis plants in concert, which were never designed to work together. There were software collisions and control issues and it drained the one well that we had. It added additional costs of drilling two new wells and the need for broadband Internet. We turned to the government to live up to its word because it said that after one year of testing they would move it to a final phase. We are here three years later and our submission, by the good graces of AANDC, might get funded. We have taken what was supposed to be a pilot test and turned it into an interim solution, which was never intended.

If this is the experience of a small First Nation in British Columbia in a isolated community, then this is most likely what many First Nations in similar locations and isolated places will also face; and to me it is unacceptable. I think of communities like Kashechewan, Gilford Island and Attawapiskat. This clearly show the shortcomings in the Canadian government's approach to meeting the needs of First Nations and living up to its fiduciary obligations as defined by the Supreme Court and by the Constitution of Canada and what is included in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

It is unacceptable that Canada continues to move forward top down and trying to do what is best for our First Nations people with the absence of our input. The days of colonialism are long gone, but it is still quite alive and well in many of the behaviors of the federal government. We have to recognize this for what it is: a further denial of First Nations as peoples and a perpetuation of the doctrine of discovery. The behaviours of the government in the court show that we still must demonstrate to the court that we are actually people.

Canadians and this great country of Canada deserve much better from the federal government. It must live up to the human rights standards that it supports internationally and to bring that home and make sure our backyards are taken care of as we wonder around the word and point fingers at other countries and their human rights infringements.

I want to talk about the source to tap notion from AANDC. Source water protection: I think the federal government would do much better in devoting some resources, which are now being directed to Bill S8 and Bill S11, and directing that energy into resources to develop some sort of meaningful arrangement a mechanism to engage with the provincial governments across Canada. The federal government purports to look after the source water protection but has no authority in the watersheds or the water tables that we find in British Columbia. That falls under provincial jurisdiction. Right away, we have a government that cannot even live up to the commitment it makes and purports to be seen as some measure of progress for itself.How is it that the federal government can guarantee any First Nation source water protection when it has no authority in our territories, which the Crown has generously taken from our people?

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the UBCIC opposes Bill S8 in its current form for the reasons given today.

Once again, we recommend that the current bill be scrapped and that a new process begin that involves appropriate consultations and accommodation with all First Nations, that addresses the capacity gap, and that works toward a regulatory regime that reflects Aboriginal title, Aboriginal rights, treaty rights, our jurisdiction and guaranteed access to safe drinking water. The government needs to identify for Canadians so that they can have comfort and some confidence in this government to meet the needs of First Nations. It needs to be adequate resourcing and a longterm commitment for capacity; and it needs to be a regulatory regime that will not handcuff First Nations or pull one leg out from under us so we can stumble along. That is not a solution. It is time we brought the UN declaration to the ground.

In addition to being [Editor`s note: Witness spoke in his native language], I am a Canadian citizen. That tells me that each and every one of you senators is my senator. I implore you to do what is right. I implore you to put a stop to this foolishness of Bill S8 and that you stand and hold the ground that you are charged to do with your responsibilities and capacity and push back on this bill and let the majority government know that it is unacceptable. You are hearing the words from First Nations across Canada that you accept the breadth and width of the responsibilities bequeathed upon you as senators and that you stand tall.

I will be standing beside you to cheer you on when you do that, Senator St. Germain; I know it is in your heart.[Editor’s note: Witness spoke in his native language.]

We want to thank you for allowing us to speak in your house. We bring greetings from our people in Akwesasne, from the eldest to the youngest in our community.

We are here to talk about an issue that concerns our people greatly, for we live in the St. Lawrence Valley. We live along the river called the St. Lawrence. Water is very much part of our lives. We live on the river, we breathe, we pay respect to Mother Earth, to the water, the land, the air that we breathe. Those traditions are still very much with us. It is for those reasons that people have asked us to speak out.

We have brought a paper that we will leave with you at the conclusion of our presentation as a way for you to remember our words. I want to quote a bit of it to let you know what is on our minds.

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne supports safe drinking water and the need to develop regulations governing drinking water, water quality and waste water disposal on First Nation reserves. However, we are greatly concerned with Bill S8, the safe drinking water for First Nations act. It does not reflect the discussion that has been had in support of it. We believe that substantial improvements are required so that it can best meet the needs of all First Nations. The single best issue with the proposed legislation is the opportunity that is being missed to help First Nations and Aboriginal people grow and assume greater responsibilities to efficiently and effectively regulate their drinking and waste water systems.

Despite its steady intent, the proposed legislation, as presently worded, does not allow for growth in First Nations, does not allow for a maturing of their ability to manage their own affairs, and does not promote capacity development at the community level. We will always be subject to someone else's control provinces and/or unnamed third parties.

In the years since the 1950s, when industrialization of the St. Lawrence River Valley occurred, Akwesasne became one of the most polluted reserves in Canada. Industrial pollution has impacted the water we drink and the air we breathe for the past 60 years. We are located in one of 43 areas of concern identified in the Great Lakes Basin. Out of necessity, we have developed the skills of our environmental staff in Akwesasne to effectively respond to these environmental issues. Over time, we have successfully integrated our traditional ecological knowledge with Western science in order to best protect our community's environment. As a result, we have one of the most qualified and experienced environmental staffs on a reserve in Canada.

Akwesasne is one of the largest First Nations in Canada, with a membership population of over 11,000. It is an international community located in Canada and in the United States. An additional 67,000 Mohawks reside on the American side in one community. We have one state, two provinces, two countries. Our unique geographic locate has compelled us to develop our ability to deal with multiple jurisdictions on a daily basis.

We strongly support development and enforcement of community laws. We have a justice department and a court system. We have had a drinking water bylaw in place since 1964 that provides rules for the construction and maintenance of a waterworks system and regulates water supplies. We also have a wildlife conservation law that is needed to serve the areas we live in, which includes water, islands, wildlife and fish. Those are our brothers and sisters and we have an obligation to look after them.

We have assembled all the staff necessary to properly regulate drinking water safety. Our health department is one of the largest in our government. We have a health director, the equivalent of a health minister at a First Nations level. We have trained professionals; an environmental health officer and community nurses to collect water samples. We have a department of technical services that supervises the operation of our two Class III water treatment plants, our one Class I water treatment plant and two Class II plants. We also have one Class II waste water treatment facility and four Class I plants. We have nine provincially certified water and waste water plant operators.

Over time our people have gone to school and become certified in order to protect the health interests of our people, our community. We bring to you our experience. You do not have to entice us to be concerned about health and water in our community, because we have done those things. Sometimes you have to create laws in spite of federal and provincial laws and regulations. Over time, we have gained acceptance in partnerships with the provinces, the federal government and Indian Affairs when they saw the objectives and goals that we have set. We want to bring to you our experience from what we have learned and the capacitybuilding that our people have developed over time.

Aboriginal rights and treaties are constitutionally protected and they must be upheld.

Aboriginal rights arise from our longstanding relationship with our lands, and the waters of the world are an integral part of this relationship. We refer to them as the bloodlines of our Mother Earth. We acknowledge the responsibility to quench the thirst of all life in our thanksgiving address. Our Aboriginal rights give us inherent responsibilities to protect the waters.

Treaties are an important part of our history. The TwoRow Wampum and Silver Covenant Chain are two of our oldest treaties and were used to establish our relationship with the Europeans hundreds of years ago. They are based on principles of peace, good mind and strength by making sure our words and actions match.

In the 17th century, in the St. Lawrence Valley our people made the Oswegatchie Treaty, the Treaty of Kahnawake. Those treaties secured our Aboriginal rights in the St. Lawrence Valley where we live. From the earliest times until today our people have built our nationhood status.

We are presently involved in the last leg of selfgovernment negotiations with Canada, and we have outlined and articulated our position. That process of negotiations has been going on since 1988 and more so in the last five years.

Going forward, our mission is to protect our people, our lands and waters. Aboriginal and treaty rights are inherently protective of the natural world, including the waters. They are constitutionally protected rights of First Nations that are recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

We cannot imagine federal First Nation safe drinking water legislation being enacted that would take away our constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights and that such an action would somehow be viewed as a positive step.

Instead, proposed federal legislation must contain a nonderogation clause indicating that the legislation should not be interpreted to abrogate or derogate from Aboriginal or treaty rights.The last part of clause 3 of Bill S8 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of First Nations. While some believe this is an improvement over the language in Bill S11, it is not enough to limit the likelihood that the legislation will interfere with our Aboriginal or treaty rights. The intent to protect Aboriginal and treaty rights must be clearly stated and Akwesasne strongly recommends the deletion of this last part. Section 3 should read:For greater certainty, nothing in this act or the regulations is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I will now ask Chief John Adams to talk about the need to incorporate First Nationsdriven approaches.

John Adams, Chief, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne: Thank you for letting me speak. Akwesasne currently cannot support Bill S8 at all. We do feel the need for a water legislation bill, but the actual way it is going is a onesizefitsall. For Akwesasne specifically, the grand chief has said we have the capability. We have been doing this since 1964, but in dropping Bill S8 onto Akwesasne, I feel you will only hinder us. Instead of helping us, you are forcing it upon us.

Like my grand chief said, we are the second largest onreserve First Nation. We are 40 minutes away from Ottawa. We have not been consulted. I have no idea why.When you talk about the Indian Act, it allows us to make bylaws. We currently have a bylaw. Bill S8 will supersede our bylaw. We can make our own bylaw, which we did, and if we have anything that goes against the legislation, the legislation will supersede it. How does that let us grow if you are implementing legislation over us?

Like the grand chief said, we are in agreement on principle on the federal lands nation building, sectoral agreement. We are currently in agreement in principle. However, currently, as the legislation reads, that does not matter; you have to be in one. We are going through it right now, so there is no leeway.

In the matrimonial legislation, Bill S2, there is a clause for a transition period from First Nations communities that are in selfgovernment agreements. Since we have not officially signed off on an agreement but have one in principle, Bill S8 will fall on top of us and take control. How does that let us grow?

We have started talking to the provincial government about taking on the responsibility of water and waste water. We have favourable responses to that effect. Currently in Bill S8 the minister may assign it to provincial regimes. How does that work for Akwesasne? You tell us. We have two provinces within one reserve. We are at a loss. Akwesasne has always maintained we will do it for ourselves.

If we cannot stop Bill S8, we are looking for an exemption. We have the thoughts of our Iroquois communities across the St. Lawrence Valley up to Six Nations. We call it Iroquois Caucus. We look out for them; they look out for us. That is a significant amount of onreserve people with water and waste water treatment plants.

Currently, Bill S8 will not allow us to move forward at a community level or even at an Iroquois Caucus level. I beg of you, senators, do not move Bill S8 through. You are only hindering the progressive communities.With respect to Chief Chamberlin, we do feel that some people need help with waste water treatment plants. Akwesasne currently has a thousand homes on its systems with 27 kilometres of clean, safe, potable water. With the help of AANDC, we were able to do it. We still have 20 per cent more to go to continue this safe water project. If you want to see a difficult project, come to Akwesasne. It is 40 minutes away. We will show you that we had to cross waterways, the St. Lawrence, to get clean, safe, potable water from one house to another. We did that in collaboration with AANDC. We, as Akwesasne, have been doing stuff like this, collaboration, thinking outside the box, partnerships. Bill S8 will no longer allow us to do that with water legislation.

With that, I will turn it over to our technician, Mr. Ransom, who has more information on the environment.

James Ransom, Director, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne: Thank you, senators. I wanted to address a couple of issues for you. The first one is with regard to section 5(1)(q) of Bill S8, and that section deems First Nations the owner of drinking water or waste water systems in their communities. What it does not do, though, is recognize our ability as owners of those systems to effectively regulate them. Akwesasne and First Nations have a history of finding solutions to water issues, and the bill does not recognize that.

I wanted to share an example with you. In the 1990s, I was working at the Assembly of First Nations in their environment unit. We came across an issue regarding onreserve water and waste water treatment plant operators. We found that provincial training programs for these operators were not working. The problem was that we were taking operators out of their communities and bringing them, in Ontario, to Toronto for training on equipment and processes that they would never see in their lifetime. As a result, the systems they were operating and maintaining were breaking down much before their lifespan.

We piloted, in Ontario and in Manitoba, a circuit rider training program, wherein we took seasoned operators and they became the trainers. Instead of taking the person out of the community, we took the trainer into the community, and they did handson training on the equipment they were going to use and that they knew, and it made all the difference.The pilot project would eventually become Indian and Northern Affairs national Circuit Rider Training Program. It came about not from the provinces but directly from First Nations themselves. I think it demonstrates that we can be part of the solution if we are given a fair chance to contribute.

The issue for us is also that the language in Bill S8, as Chief Adams said, relegates our bylaws to a secondary position while at the same time giving carte blanche approval to all provincial water laws and acknowledges them. That is just wrong. We cannot see any reason why laws that we develop that provide the same protection as provinces should not be recognized by this legislation.

We know that the provinces are not all consistent in that we are in both Quebec and Ontario and Quebec does not have the same standards as Ontario. Ontario is actually better. Because we follow best practices, even though we have water treatment plants in Quebec, they operate to Ontario standards. It just makes good sense, and so we implement solutions like that.

My last point is with regard to this legislation and that it needs to be responsive to the budgetary constraints that are occurring. Currently, the federal government is going through a costcutting exercise to help reduce the federal deficit. One of the government agencies taking the biggest hit is Environment Canada and for First Nations, Environment Canada has a role in waste water treatment systems. Under CEPA, and given the cuts the department is experiencing, it will be very difficult for them to maintain a substantial role in the implementation of this legislation.

Likewise, clause 5(3) of Bill S8 fails to consider the political reality that exists in the provinces. The provinces, Ontario in particular, is looking to reduce costs, reduce the size of government, improve regulatory outcomes and improve efficiencies.

Section 5(3) flies in the face of the cost saving exercises that are taking place within the provinces. In Ontario alone, clause 5(3) would add regulatory responsibilities to the province. They are going to suddenly find themselves responsible for 133 First Nations' water and waste water treatment systems and they do not have the capacity to do that.

It is going to increase the provincial regulatory costs in a time of cost cutting and fiscal restraint. We think the solution is to let us take a more active role in regulating our drinking water systems. Akwesasne already has experience building relationships. As Chief Mitchell said, we have experience in building relationship with others; other governments and agencies around common interests. We have already taken the initiative. We have met with Ontario Minister of the Environment Jim Bradley and started discussing how we can form a partnership in which the province recognizes our ability to make our own regulations and we enter into a relationship where we exchange information, technical assistance and training when needed, in a cooperative fashion. That is coming from us to them and nobody is dictating that to us. There is an important difference.

We believe that Bill S8 needs to encourage, promote and advocate for partnerships between the federal government, provinces and First Nations around common interests of safe drinking water for all people, such as what we are trying to do. We think a new clause should be added that goes something like this: The minister will exempt from this legislation First Nations that enter into agreements with respective provinces for the administration and enforcement of regulations made under subclause 4(1), so we become part of the process.Those are the points I wanted to make and I want to turn it back over to Chief Mitchell.Mr. Mitchell: Thank you.

In the last few minutes that I wanted to convey my thoughts to you as a conclusion and ask you this question: What does selfgovernment mean to the Government of Canada? In what ways would you recognize self governance for First Nations that have expressed a desire to go in that direction? At some point in time, Canada has to say to us, selfgovernment means this. At some point in time you have to say the law making powers go with it, the responsibility of selfgovernment goes with it. When we talk about governance, jurisdiction and authority in Akwesasne with the government in Canada, it took us a long time to show them that we could do it. Now, they acknowledge that we are one the most progressive First Nations that has shown ability to get things done.

We talk about a partnership here: ways to fix it, mend it and make it strong. We appeal to you to listen to some of these thoughts that we bring to you. Now, the exemption part: If an Aboriginal body in the final stages of negotiating selfgoverning agreement with the Government of Canada consistent with the intent expressed in 14(1) the GovernorinCouncil may make regulations excepting the Aboriginal body from the regulations for a period not to exceed three years.

That was a precedent in the MRP. We are not asking to reinvent anything. We are asking for the same consideration because if we are handcuffed, that will send a signal to our community. The direction we are headed is to maintain this path we are on and developing the pride and accomplishments of people, not just our community. Many First Nations across Canada come to Akwesasne and ask how we did it. How did you develop this system? How did you train your people? How did you get them interested in this and stay on it? The contribution we can make is reinforcement of confidence.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, chiefs. Not to be argumentative Chief Chamberlin, but how do we handle this? We had the Atlantic Policy Congress here the other day and they are in favour of the legislation. We asked them specifically. Then we had the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. Chief Madeleine Paul was here with a consultant and they accept the legislation. I know you qualified what you said before you disagreed with the legislation. You said clearly that you were not speaking for anybody else but yourself as the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. Somewhere along the line, to use a term, we have to square the cycle. My understanding is we have great approval as well from treaties 6 and 8 in Alberta. They have not yet appeared before us so I do not want to speak on their behalf until we hear from them.

I hear your concerns, but can you understand the dilemma we are in? I believe it was Chief Mitchell or Chief Adams who made reference to the fact that one size does not fit all. We are listening to people from across the country. I am not sitting here saying that by any stretch of the imagination we are absolutely correct, but in the same breath this is the dilemma. There are those that want it as it is they have said they before us and now there is tremendous opposition to others. I am not questioning the legitimacy of your arguments. I am asking you to respond to a situation that has arrived before us as a committee.

I would also like to try to answer your question, Chief Mitchell. What is selfgovernment? I think we have 22 modern day treaties and I am not speaking for the federal government and I have been part of those for 19 years, starting with Nisga'a and with the Sechelt when I was in the House of Commons. We have modern day treaties that provide selfgovernment. I am advocate of it and I put forward a piece of selfgovernment legislation which I plan to reintroduce before I leave office here in November. To get back to Chief Chamberlin, would you mind commenting on that for us?

Mr. Chamberlin: When you reference the First Nations and groupings that have participated to date as you just have, my immediate response is then why was that same effort not provided all First Nations in Canada? If every First Nation as Canadian citizens we are equal to one another -- where one Aboriginal right is no greater or no less than our neighbour's -- there must be a process where we as the First Nations of British Columbia could engage with the federal government as deeply and as widely as perhaps you have in the Atlantic or other areas of Canada. However, I can tell you it is not so.

The Chair: Were you consulted at all? Mr. Chamberlin: No, not in a meaningful way. The Chair: Neither the summit or the union?Mr. Chamberlin: The summit and the union do not consult on behalf of our member tribes. It must be one which respects the communitybased, nation-driven approaches from our First Nations.

With my distant family, I think the difference in the scenarios we present to you shows the diversity of the issues we face in Canada, where the urban population or the ones with a large population base around them have a different set of circumstances and opportunities.

When you come to Gilford Island and jump on the plane and fly into our community you will not find a municipality that we can make an arrangement with. Therefore we wind up becoming quite independent and demand a different approach from what other First Nations may enjoy. I can appreciate the challenge that Canada has, but I can also say that if you listen to the expert panel's recommendations we would not be here talking about this problem. The recommendations were clear and good money was invested on behalf of Canadians to arrive at what was meant to be direction for the government to embrace. By walking away from the very basis of those recommendations, the preconditions especially, you have just wasted millions of dollars. Those are valuable resources that could have been directed to helping a First Nation that does not have potable water or waste water management.

Senator Tkachuk: Just so I am clear, because I got a little confused in the questions with Chief Chamberlin. Does Chief Chamberlin speak on behalf of all 104 or just his own reserve, or is he saying that the federal government should have consulted with all 104 reserves? I am not quite sure exactly what process you are talking about, chief.

Mr. Chamberlin: I am fortunate enough to be able to speak from two hats today. I am here on the behalf of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. We have resolutions passed by the chiefs and assembly of our 104 First Nation members that have given direction to the union executive, which I am part of, to come and explain the flaws that we see with this bill.

When I speak on behalf of our tribe, I do that on behalf of the Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis. I do that to try and illustrate for you all the challenges in front of us, both in terms of capacity but also in terms of infrastructure and the resources that are necessary, and also the meandering approach that the government has taken to meet the needs of our isolated community.

Where we are fortunate, in comparison to some other communities, is that we have a measure of progress, but it is still halfway across the fence and left.

Senator Tkachuk: Just so I am clear again, the consultation process, did it take place with anybody in B.C. or with any reserves in B.C. or just not your reserve?Mr. Chamberlin: I know that the expert panel had a number of regional sessions for First Nations to Senator Tkachuk: I am not talking about the consultation process. Mr. Chamberlin: Not that I am aware of. Senator Tkachuk: They spoke to no one? Mr. Chamberlin: No. What I have also heard from other provinces is that there has been an absence of due diligence and adequate consultation.The Chair: I think we should determine that. I am not challenging what you are saying at all, but it would be interesting to know if there was no consultation at all in British Columbia.Mr. Chamberlin: I can tell you, when it came down to Environment Canada's waste water regulations, I assisted in developing the consultation model for the province of B.C. At that time they wanted to have one session for 203 First Nations of British Columbia. I pointed to a different province and said they have a different number of bands or First Nations, but they also enjoyed one session. Because of the difference in number we demanded to have more sessions. We wound up having three regional sessions, and that is not consultation. That is information sharing and gathering, but when it comes down to the development of First Nations perspectives it has to be deep and thorough consultation.Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentations this evening. What role did the expert panel play in British Columbia? You have mentioned that and that their findings were important to you. What role did they play in British Columbia and did you have an opportunity to provide input?Mr. Chamberlin: Thank you for your question. The expert panel did come to British Columbia on a number of locations. I cannot remember the exact number. I know I stood in front of them and shared the thoughts and wishes from our First Nation. I draw your attention to page 49 of the expert panel report. At the bottom of the page you will find there are preconditions to provide resources to discuss and deal with high risks, as an example. It clearly says that the first and most critically to be addressed is that resource gap for the infrastructure. We participated in understanding and sharing our wisdom and traditional ecological knowledge, as my friends have also spoken of, but that rollup report is what I am referencing in terms of Canada forgetting that it is even there and charting a course independent of the recommendations.Senator Meredith: Thank you so much for your presentations. I always enjoy the passion that comes to this committee with the various witnesses who have come and spoken to us.I am clearly a little bit confused, similar to Senator Tkachuk, with respect to the consultation process. The department has appeared before us, and in 2009 they had 13 oneday sessions. In 201011 they also had further sessions. Mr. Chamberlin, I am a little concerned that we are getting conflicting information as to whether information was available and parties chose not to participate because they thought maybe the process was flawed. Can you clarify for us as to whether somehow information got to your membership and they chose not to participate or there was strictly no communication whatsoever of the process of Bill S8?Mr. Chamberlin: In terms of Bill S8, I have not known of any consultation. I know Bill S8 evolved from Bill S11 and the modifications, I guess the government is saying they have had, this is consultation. This is how the government will characterize it, but we are not talking to the Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis First Nations or the Squamish First Nation here. We are talking about a collective. The government is characterizing what is consultation to meet its needs rather than actually having meaningful consultation at the community level. If you have a First Nation that is able to enter into a municipaltype agreement with the municipality for the provision of safe water, the consultation with them will look quite different than if you come to Gilford Island and talk to us about the challenges we have. A regional session is where we group a number of First Nations together so we sign in and we can count it off as consultation, is what the federal government chooses to do. It is inadequate. That does not give respect to the honour of the Crown as described in Supreme Court of Canada rulings.Senator Meredith: Chief Mitchell, I applaud the efforts your community has made. You have said that clearly this legislation here will almost do away with any progress that you have made in terms of your approach to ensuring that there is safe drinking water and proper management of your waste water. Can you go on a little bit further as to why you feel that this legislation, as is, will do away with the progress that you have made and the fact that you have taken on the process of training your own people? As a businessman I applaud an individual taking initiative and doing things to better their communities and the training of our young people, especially that, and within the community. I applaud you for that.Could you elaborate for me on the fact that you feel that this will push you back? Mr. Adams, you indicated that this is not like a oneglovefitsall scenario here. Would you elaborate for me, please, if you could?Mr. Mitchell: Sure. In 1964, when they first introduced to the community the desire of the committee to have regulations the committee could have, it was not something at the time that Indian Affairs would consider. However, they did it, and it was very basic. It was called a bylaw, and it seemed innocent enough for the minister to say let us see what they can do with that. What I am talking about is thereafter. The ability to see things through builds confidence in a community, from leadership to families in the community. That is what happened in Akwesasne when I said that, at one time, we were the most polluted First Nation in Canada. Little by little, people began to learn more. We went to the elders and said, "We need your knowledge of the natural world, of your thoughts on science, from a traditional perspective." We said to people who had graduated and were coming home, "We need you to help us with this." Little by little, the combining of the two provided that confidence, and then we started making regulations, codes and laws.The training part was the same thing. You have to build that confidence. All of a sudden, you are giving this authority to the province, but you are not recognizing any of the authority of the First Nations. That is the basic premise, and our basic objection is that you need to have the law making power, as a First Nation, to build that capacity, to keep on building and developing. Instead of Indian Affairs, we are now looking at the province. The conflict for us is that we are looking at two provinces that have differing laws, codes and policies. We have learned from our experience in health and every aspect of that that they do not always have the same level.The St. Lawrence River runs through the middle, but it does not run in a straight line. It runs in zigzags around islands. When you going down the St. Lawrence, one minute you are in Canada, and the next minute you are in the U.S. You are in New York State. You are in Quebec. You are in Ontario as you go down. That is probably a good example of the geographic situation, and I really wanted to have the opportunity to invite this Senate committee to come and visit Akwesasne because you will see what the community has done in spite of all of the obstacles. Today, as I said last year, we have an issue with CBSA. They are now in Cornwall, and, every time I come home from work, I have to go across and report and then come back. We tie up the bridge, 80 per cent of our population. Even though it was two years ago and they thought they would break our spirit, the Mohawk people said, "In spite of that, we will continue to live and abide by laws that this community will make." When I said that we have our own courts, our own justice, it is a thing that people will follow and acknowledge, and it is consistent with the laws in Canada and its provinces.What I am talking about is that if you take that away from them you take away the confidence we will regress to the level that other people find themselves in, not having the opportunity. It was not so much that money was there. It is that we have to develop the confidence of the people to return home and bring their skills back. Then, we will have the leadership and the confidence to make those laws that are good for the community and probably good for the provinces and the country.That is our contribution. I will defer the other question you had to Mr. Adams.The Chair: Colleagues, we have to get through this, so I would like you to tighten the answers a bit. Would you please be so generous as to do that? Mr. Mitchell: No problem.Mr. Adams: Will do. Since 2004, we have opened up our class 2 water treatment plant. OFNTSC remains vigilant that it is impeccable, but you have needs up north Kashechewan. One size does not fit all. We are fortunate enough to not be in Kashechewan's dire need. We have resources, so, when I say one size fits all, we would like you not to group us in that same way. We are fortunate enough to be progressive, and that is what I mean when I say that one size does not fit all. That is it.Mr. Mitchell: What we are really saying is do not make a bill in that mode of one size fits all. There should be provisions in the bill that acknowledge that there are large, medium and small First Nations. Somewhere in there, there is the opportunity for First Nations to fill in those blanks. That is what we are trying to say.Senator Meredith: Thank you, chiefs. Chair, I have a few more questions, but I will ask them on second round. The Chair: Alright, that is great. Thank you.Senator Tkachuk: Welcome. We all agree on one thing. We all agree we need safe drinking water. The principle of the bill is agreed to, but, obviously, you have some disagreements with the substance.Chief Chamberlin, just so I am clear because I want to continue the queries that I made earlier, my understanding from you is that there are 203 First Nations in British Columbia, of which 104 belong to the association that you claim to represent here. Mr. Chamberlin: I do not claim to. I am here representing the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, and we have 104 members.Senator Tkachuk: I understand that. Because you spoke about your own reserve and the problems of the bill representing your organization, I just want to make clear which is which. Is the organization that you represent opposed to bill or opposed to certain parts of the bill?Mr. Chamberlin: I believe I was pretty clear that we reject the bill in its present form, that it needs to be abandoned and that it needs to be redone with adequate and thorough consultations with the First Nations in British Columbia, as well as First Nations across Canada. That was passed by resolution by the chiefs and assembly.Senator Tkachuk: Of the 104 members? Mr. Chamberlin: Of the 104. Senator Tkachuk: Do you know if the other 100 were consulted?Mr. Chamberlin: Not that I am aware of. This is something that has landed under the radar, and I think Senator Tkachuk: Was there consultation on the previous bill?Mr. Chamberlin: No. I believe that you need to take from the discussion here today that the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs' position on Bill S11 and Bill S8 is consistent. It has not changed, and it is the voice of 104 First Nations in British Columbia. That would inform your question about the level of consultation and the comfort level in British Columbia in relation to the efforts of the federal government. Senator Tkachuk: Of the 104 First Nations, how many of them have a drinking water problem?Mr. Chamberlin: I do not have those figures off the top of my head.Senator Tkachuk: Do you have an idea? Mr. Chamberlin: I would have to find out. I do not have an answer for you, senator.Senator Tkachuk: There must be some that do not have a drinking water problem. Mr. Chamberlin: I know that up in the Fraser canyon, where we have a number of our member tribes of the Nlaka'pamux Tribal Council, you will find that, by and large, the infrastructure in place to meet their needs has aged. It needs replacement. It may be providing some measure of water, but on its last legs.Senator Tkachuk: It has infrastructure problems, much like many communities outside of the reserves, and they are upgrading their sewage and water systems and all the rest of it. Mr. Chamberlin: I would agree, but I also understand that the federal government has a different relationship with First Nations than it does with other Canadians. That fiduciary obligation is well defined, and, with that, comes a certain level of responsibility. What we are seeing now is that the federal government is not living up to the broad description of that fiduciary responsibility, whether it is budgetary cutbacks or the lack of resources. Senator Tkachuk: Let us talk about that for a moment. What is your responsibility?Mr. Chamberlin: Our responsibility is to ensure that the machinery or the equipment that we do receive is kept in good working order and that when we can, if we are in position to contribute to our own needs, we do so. I can report to you that when our village on Gilford Island set out to rebuild all of the 26 homes, we contributed over $1 million toward our housing project. We are one of those First Nations that has severe challenges in terms of economic development, and yet we paid our part. We participated, and we owned what we felt we needed to in terms of rebuilding our village. It took a lot of effort from our First Nation to do that, and not all First Nations are in a position where they can do that. If you are in a larger, more urban setting, you could possibly be in a different financial bracket or have a different means to approach your capital and infrastructure needs.Senator Dyck: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations tonight. You were very clear in your assessment of the bill. I think it is quite interesting. Not only do you come from different parts of the country, but it sounds as though the water infrastructure you have in your areas is at very different levels. In British Columbia, you were talking about having an interim solution, and it sounds like at Akwesasne you have probably good infrastructure, yet you both oppose the bill.As I recall, Bill S11 was withdrawn and there were press releases that went out that said the department was going to rework the bill in active consultation with First Nations. So far, I do not think that has happened to any extent that would satisfy the people that have appeared before us. Consultation is definitely a big part of what should have happened, but if the bill gets passed, it will be very important in terms of the development of the regulations.My first question is: If the bill is passed and regulations are developed, what is your expectation? How will you go about ensuring that First Nations are really accommodated, consulted and your input actually listened to? I think you used that term, Chief Chamberlin. Will the government actually listen to First Nations when the regulations are being developed? How will you ensure that happens?Mr. Chamberlin: For the record, we at the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs will be extremely disappointed if this bill goes through. We have been very clear and detailed in our submissions and responses to Canada that the comfort level is not there with the consultation that has gone on. I, as the chief of a small First Nation, know of no consultation opportunities for Bill S8, period. I saw those press releases. We probably viewed them perhaps a little differently, but through the work we have done at the union assessing and analyzing the differences between Bill S8 and Bill S11, there is not much difference at all. There are very small changes, and they were not the changes put forward by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. That does not set the table well for comfort in further consultation and the notion of being accommodated adequately. Mr. Adams: If I may, I would like to explain something. There was no consultation. Consultation needs to be defined. That is what First Nations across Canada want to know. Is having coffee with an INAC or AANDC official consultation? I have seen where you call in or there is a webinar or you have to make your way to AFN. Which one is the consultation? If you clearly define what consultation is, then you will get true consultation. We had a meeting about Bill S8, but AANDC did not seek us out; we sought them out. I went to Alberta to look for them. I turned around and went to Niagara Falls the next day. I was following them. You tell me, do I have to chase for consultation or is AANDC, who is supposed to be the overseer, supposed to look for us? You tell me.Senator Dyck: Thank you. You have made some good points. I think it is clear we need to define what that term means.Second, the expert panel I believe recommended that there should be a water commission that is part of the regulatory process. We had witnesses from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, and they also recommended that there be a regional water authority. It sounds like, for them, working across their region in this fashion was a way of ensuring that all the individual First Nations within the region were active partners in developing whatever it is they needed for their region.If something like a regional water authority was incorporated into the bill, would that help make it more acceptable?The Chair: Would you like to answer that, Grand Chief Mitchell?Mr. Mitchell: Yes. First, the Great Lakes Commission is in place. First Nations, Native Americans on both the U.S. and Canadian sides play an integral part in it. Dr. Henry Lickers, among others, holds a prestigious position there, as well as other Native Americans, and I want to use it as an example. On the U.S. side, the recognition given to First Nations in terms of authority and jurisdiction is equal to that of the state. It is placed upon them, and then partnerships are formed from there. The wish of Akwesasne on the Canadian side is to be given that opportunity and to have that as a goal and objective.Senator Dyck: If that sort of arrangement were part of this bill, it would make it more acceptable, if I could sum it up that way?Mr. Mitchell: Definitely.Senator Dyck: Chief Chamberlin?Mr. Chamberlin: When it comes to a regional water authority, I cannot comment on what the Atlantic provinces have chosen as a route forward, but my first assumption would be that it was based on the realities found in Atlantic Canada, whether it is geographical, whether it is proximity to urban settings or what have you. In British Columbia, there is a vast difference between areas in the province of B.C. from northeastern B.C. over to the northern coastal areas to northern Vancouver Island where I am from. As much as I would like to give you an answer, that is the kind of dialogue and consultation that we need to endeavour to arrive at a proper answer for that.The Chair: Quick question. Given the urgency of the situation fresh drinking water must be one of the most urgent things in the country; if you have not got safe drinking water, you are in trouble how would you provide an amalgamation process? You cannot consult with 630 First Nations, to be realistic, even 203, such as in B.C. To say you would have to consult with each and every one of them is a difficulty. I have been sitting here for 19 years and hearing about accommodation and consultation not taking place properly concerns me. You are the vicepresident of the union. Do you not agree that it would be impractical to expect the government to consult with all 630 some bands? There must be an amalgamation process or something that would facilitate consultation but not necessarily with every living, breathing band.I am not trying to minimize the importance of anyone, but I am trying to look at the practical aspect of it.Mr. Chamberlin: Thank you for the question, Senator St. Germain.If I could be so bold as to describe to you perhaps a grouping effort of consultation, I would encourage the Government of Canada to perhaps approach various tribal councils found in British Columbia. Whether it is the Kwakiutl District Council, which has a larger group of nations that are part of it; whether it is the Nlaka'pamux tribal council; or whether it is the Stl'atl'imx or Tsawataineuk tribal council, you will find there are groups of First Nations that selfidentify with one another and are found within geographical similarities. That may be one way to approach it if there is no appetite to meaningfully consult with all First Nations.Senator Sibbeston: I was very concerned about the statements made by the Akwesasne representative who said they are concerned about whether this bill can in any way take away from what they have.I was just looking through the regulations to see whether that is the case. I see that, while the minister can make regulations with respect to the operations of waters and disposal of sewage, under clause 5 it can also confer on any person or body the power to regulate drinking water. They can confer on any person or body any legislative, administrative, judicial or other power that the Governor in Council considers necessary to effectively regulate. I get the impression from this that it is possible that the government can give power, as it were, to a First Nation to operate its own system. I am wondering if this might be the way to have an exception or special recognition of the advancements that the Akwesasne people have made so that they will not be held back or diminished in any way by this bill. Have the representatives seen this? Do you think this might be a way in which the government can recognize the work you have done and the system you have in place and not take away from what you presently have? Mr. Adams: The bill also contains clause 7 with regard to First Nations laws. Since 1964 we have taken the initiative. Through the Indian Act they allowed us to make bylaws with ministerial approval. Clause 7 says that if our bylaw does not accord with federal regulations, the federal regulations will supersede our laws. What sense is there in us making bylaws if Bill S8 will trump them?Clause 5 should include "may incorporate by reference laws of a province." Why not laws of a First Nation as well? We have customary laws. How can we advance ourselves if Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada does not recognize that either?We are trying to move ahead in Akwesasne, but it seems to me that Bill S8 will hold us back. That is why we cannot support this bill in its current form. We would like an exemption. I do not know if that answers your question.Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, we obviously need to study this area. It is a serious contention of the representatives to say that they are concerned that this bill will in some ways hold them back and not recognize the advancements they have made. That is a significant point. Perhaps we should have our researchers and legal advisers look at this to see whether that is the case. If we think it is important enough, we can consider an amendment, as they have suggested, to provide for exemptions or to provide for the recognition of First Nation laws that govern this area.The Chair: In other words, you are concerned that this bill could possibly override any of the bylaws that surround the infrastructure that they have in place?Senator Sibbeston: Yes. Let us respond to their concern in a very real way. If it is the case, let us, as the Senate, do something about it and amend the bill to deal with situations such as that in Akwesasne. They are probably at the forefront of water and sewage systems in our country. We should ensure that this bill does not take anything away from what they have accomplished. That is just an idea. I suggest we pursue that and get a legal opinion on it. If it is the case, we should seek to amend the bill in order to satisfy them.The Chair: We will seek a legal opinion.Senator Sibbeston: The representatives of Akwesasne have invited us to go to their nation to see their system. I would be very interested in doing that, particularly since it is only 40 minutes away. Where I live, we get water from the Mackenzie River, which is a very big river that has very clear water, as yet. The water is pumped into a big tank. I imagine that after the water settles someone sprinkles chlorine or fluoride or whatever so that the water is good. That is my understanding of a water system, but I am sure it is more sophisticated and complicated than that.We are talking about systems like this. Why not take advantage of the opportunity given to us and see what a water and sewage system is? We could visit their reserve sometime in the next few weeks and see for ourselves. If senators are willing, I am sure that can be arranged. Is that right, Mr. Chairman?The Chair: We can discuss that, yes.Mr. Chamberlin: I would like to extend a similar invitation to you to come to Gilford Island. Senator Meredith: We do not want to leave you out.Mr. Chamberlin: We would love to host you. We would love for you to fly in and see that there are no roads that will bring you to our village, that there are no municipalities to work out creative agreements with. You can stand in the little trailer there that has three reverse osmosis water purification systems that are in conflict with one other and not operating in the way INAC wanted them to. You can see for yourselves exactly what an isolated community faces with the half measure that we have.The Chair: Thank you, panel. Senator Meredith: Grand Chief Mitchell, I am hearing that you would like an amendment to clause 5 to protect treaty and other rights. What recommendations would you make that would enable you to support the bill? Mr. Mitchell: I will read to you the proposed clause 5(3) that we drafted for your consideration:Regulations made under section 4 may incorporate by reference laws of a province or a First Nation, as amended from time to time, with any adaptations that the GovernorinCouncil may consider necessary. When you recognize that a First Nations can be proactive and has the ability to achieve the required objective, give them that opportunity. Put those provisions in the bill.Senator Meredith: Thank you.Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Grand Chief Mitchell, you said that big industries are polluting your lands and water. Would this legislation not at some point stop the pollution?Mr. Mitchell: In recent years, it is not the legislation that has stopped the pollution. For one reason or another, both in the U.S. and in Canada, those industries have ceased to operate. There was a major pulp and paper mill just west of Akwesasne, on the Canadian side. There was a Reynolds aluminum plant and a Chevy plant. They were all around us, and for economic reasons, they no longer exist. It is the same situation further up the river. Things have changed. Because of that, they have allowed our voice through the Great Lakes water commission and other opportunities to lead to keeping the St. Lawrence River clean. With respect to onreserve water, there has been more involvement of First Nations in implementing many of the concepts of lawmaking and authority.Mr. Adams: Supplemental to that, one of the senators said the Mackenzie River has clean water. Our water comes from the St. Lawrence River, and our water intake is less than a kilometre away from two or three environmental protection agency contaminant sites. I would like to know, under source water protection, how will AANDC allow us to go international as source water protection? That is a question we would like to pose to senators.Mr. Mitchell: That is the reality we live in.Mr. Chamberlin: I would like to add supplemental dialogue to this as well. When I think of industry impacts in British Columbia, I think of the Okanagan nation; they have gone to court to shut down a logging operation happening in pristine valley, where they gather their drinking water from. Then I think of different mining operations going on in British Columbia and the impacts they have on source water.I mentioned this earlier, that when the government talks about source water protection, it needs to focus on developing infrastructure or an agreement with the province working with First Nations as to how to actually go about protecting source water. When you talk about altering the industry of logging and mining, you strike at the heart of the provincial government, which are the resource revenues they enjoy from those activities.Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Many First Nations are rejecting this legislation. In reality, what if the bill passes and First Nations reject it? What would be the consequences, if any?Mr. Mitchell: We will continue to advocate safe drinking water, as we always have. Laws that affect us will come and go. With some of them, we know the intent. The reason we are here is to say, you have time to make it a good law, an even better law. That is why we are here. We cannot force you to say, "Do it this way." We are hoping that when you hear our thoughts and ideas of what provides for that and how we have done it, it might convince you to determine things should be changed. That is our objective of being here.Mr. Chamberlin: Your question sounds to me like a question of risk management. How can we honestly answer that on behalf of all First Nations in Canada? I am curious to see what will happen within First Nations across Canada in the coming years, when we look at what this government is doing in terms of the Fisheries Act, in terms of environmental assessment, in terms of water and in terms of how they are moving away from the words and the rhetoric of supporting First Nations in recognizing ourselves.Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you very much.Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for being here this evening. My question is to Grand Chief Mitchell and Chief Adams. What can be done to develop capacity development at the community level, as you mentioned? What exact steps need to be taken to become a progressive nation such as yours?Mr. Mitchell: In the last so many years, we have received a lot of visitations from other First Nations, and sometimes they merely ask, "How did you do it? What gave you the confidence to take this on?" The way we see it, they could do so as well if they had the opportunity and the confidence to go ahead and build something and they had some idea they could implement something people would accept, knowing it is good for them.We do a lot of consulting. We share any success we have had with other First Nations when asked. We are in contact with the Chiefs of Ontario, which serves 133 First Nation communities, as well as the chiefs of Quebec, even at the national level when we send people out from Akwesasne to help develop lawmaking, concepts and how to address clean drinking water in their communities. We supply our input and try to be as helpful as we can.I can only tell you from that experience that people are willing to try, and that determination reflects on our ability to share that knowledge.Mr. Adams: Capacity for development does not come free. We are using some of our own source revenue. When AANDC says they will do 80 per cent of waste water operation and the First Nation must do 20 per cent, we can stand here and tell you it is not an 80/20 split; it is a 50/50 split. To operate our water treatment and waste water treatment plants, our budget is underfunded by 30 per cent. We have the numbers to prove it. Do not be misled that funding is there; it is not. We are fortunate enough, however, that we have the experience and the education in that we are able to do foresight into what we need for the next 25 years. It all comes down to capital.You have to support Chief Chamberlin's northern community in order to do that capacity development, to help them. We can do what we can to share our ideas, but it is AANDC that is ultimately responsible for capacity development.Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.Mr. Chamberlin: When you talk about the need for capacity, you also have to talk about the need for retention. With the way funding goes now, there is not fulltime work for someone in our community. Yet if we really want to be meaningful and sincere about developing capacity, we are talking about someone that must get up to a Level 3, which will take six to seven years, then offer them a parttime job in an isolated community where industry can then pluck them away somewhere else, and we are starting all over again in terms of capacity development.There have been several studies across Canada that show the poaching of our capacity to various industries in Canada. We have to be cognizant of that. We need to ensure that when you build a water treatment plant in an isolated community, just as you do when you build a school in an isolated community, that there are resources included in the project to build a place for the water operator to reside. I think that is a piece that has been missing in terms of any formula the government has. It is a stark reality that there is a need for accommodation, and that accommodation will be one of the things that needs to be in place to retain the persons you develop capacity with.Senator Demers: At the beginning, Chief Chamberlin, you talked about the money and that there is not enough. I know it is not all about the money, but it seems to be a strong point.In 2003 there was $600 million, and as of today, there is $1.9 billion. Is there something I do not understand? Because there are so many tribes and groups, is there a lack of communication, or is the money not being channeled in the right direction? I am not saying that is enough. Do not get me wrong. I respect what was said tonight, but there seems to be a lack of accountability towards all the money that has been given.Does it make sense what I am saying?Mr. Chamberlin: Yes, it does. I would agree with you. The government is the one who is not being completely accountable with the amount of money you have just reported. I would love to see a breakdown of how much money made it out of this valley to the communities. I say that knowing all too well that with the bureaucracy and the amount of money allocated to First Nations, we can focus on the beginning figure all we want. If we are going to do that, we must acknowledge what it takes to manage that money within the confines of AANDC or any other department and look at what is actually getting out to the communities. Of that money you described, I can only relate to the experience of our community. It was a $5.5million project because the needs kept getting bigger to make sure it was operational. In the end, the plan approved by AANDC was flawed. I think about what was going on in and around our community when the water went bad: There was blasting on a logging road up top of the mountain just behind our village. Are the two related? I do not know, but it went on. I am curious to see just how much of that $1.9 billion makes it out of Ottawa. I think we would all be slightly disappointed. Senator Raine: It is good to hear from all of you. I congratulate Akwesasne on the job you are doing and the suggestions you have given for possible amendments. Certainly, we will take a good look. I understand that the bill is proposed framework legislation and that it is not designed to be a onesizefitsall. It says in the summary that regulations could be made on a provincebyprovince basis to mirror existing provincial regulatory regimes with adaptations to address the circumstances of First Nations living on those lands. Even within a province, which has regulations, there would be a need to discuss it within the province at the local First Nation level. I understand that we need the framework to move forward but the devil is in the detail, and the detail will be developed in close we hate to use the word – consultation, but you cannot regulate people who do not accept the regulations. All of us are here to try to make it better in delivering clean and safe drinking water and protecting the land on First Nations.The sad thing for me is that there seems to be a total lack of trust and confidence. When trust breaks down, people have to come together and reach out to each other.Mr. Chamberlin, are you, in your First Nation and in the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, ready to reach out to the federal government to try to make something work, even if this bill goes through, at the regulatory level? Can we not work together?Senator Meredith: Can we all get along?Mr. Chamberlin: Our First Nation would be willing to participate in developing something prior to the bill getting through a real opportunity. You characterized that trust is the major issue. I think back to one of the media that asked me whether I was hoping that the Liberals won in British Columbia or the NDP. I said neither had done a great job for First Nations people, period. I can say, and I think it is shared across Canada, that we are still waiting for the government to live up to what its courts described that it must do in terms of its behaviour. We just received a judicial ruling where the Government of Canada characterized regional sessions that I participated in with the fisheries council in consultation with our First Nations. That was just yesterday. That is what you are up against. The behaviour of the federal government is the albatross around our necks because it has not been honourable. If it had been, there would not have been so many Supreme Court of Canada rulings to the contrary. I would like to see the government come forward and do something meaningful. I would like to see the government describe, as my friends from Akwesasne talked about earlier, what a consultation is. We need to have an agreed upon definition. I believe the next step after that would be the required resources to actively participate. The Government of Canada will have a much tilted table with the resources they enjoy versus a First Nation like ours having to travel and then trying to present our case. The reality of a small band is that we have just cut our office staff back by two days every pay period across the board because the resources we get from the government is not adequate. Then, you want to add to that our participation in the development of regulations. It will take a lot of expertise, time and energy; and we do not have the resources to do it. It is not something we can do at the side of our desk amongst everything else. Senator Raine: I understand. You asked the question: What is consultation? Who do you think should answer that question? Mr. Adams: A senator had said that it was worthwhile looking into what Akwesasne had said. I found it funny that he was looking at you guys and not at us when we were the ones doing it. What kind of consultation is it when you do not recognize that we are sitting here and you do not say, "Let us work with you?" No, he turned around and said, "Let us look to Justice to do what we need to do, not the First Nation."The Chair: I think he was reacting to your request and wanting us to respond as a committee.Mr. Adams: I understand.The Chair: He may have been looking the wrong way, and I do not know why. To be fair, I know Senator Sibbeston really well; I have worked with him for 19 years on this committee. He was trying, I can only surmise, to get us onside to get a legal opinion on what you had brought up so adeptly. Mr. Adams: A legal opinion through your legal department and our First Nation. That would be consultation to work on a clause.Senator Tkachuk: Why do we not do 600 of those? Mr. Adams: We are here for Akwesasne.Senator Tkachuk: Exactly, but I am trying to ask you seriously: How would we do 600 of those?Mr. Adams: I understand your frustration. I would like to refer to your framework and liken it to a house. It is just like a house. You have to build a frame for the house, and we have to live under the framework. It is not outside Canada that lives under the framework, we have to live under it and deal with the workmanship. We would rather make it better now before we start adding the walls. Senator Dyck: I believe it was Mr. Chamberlin who said something about risk management. One concern the committee and everyone has is safe drinking water. In your opinion, if we delay this bill, would we be increasing the risk to individual First Nations people? Will this bill do anything to make the water safe? If we delay it, are we increasing the risk? We are being told by some people that if we delay it, people will die or get sick.Mr. Chamberlin: I would suggest going back to the expert panel's recommendations. It talked about the need to have adequate resources to bring everybody up to the same level. If we do not do that, then people's lives will be at risk.This proposed legislation does not provide for that, so we can pass this legislation tomorrow, but we will still need a lot of resources to provide safe drinking water. Do the regulations actually help on the ground? I would suggest that the government really take a look at its commitment to First Nation peoples and that it live up to what the courts have defined for it in terms of consultation and get the water systems up to snuff before anything else. That would be my first step. To capture a comment on the consultation, recent history shows that Canada developing consultation without the role of First Nations has not been received well, so let us learn from that. Let us develop and define a consultation process in which we equally participate, in definition. Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible.The Chair: Did you want to respond to that Chief Mitchell or Chief Adams?Mr. Adams: We look at it as yes. I would like to say ditto. We could sit here and talk for two more years, but will that fix the water problem? No. You need to fix the water problems first and at the same time, you make the bill stronger.

Senator Dyck: Thank you. That is clear.

The Chair: I wish everybody had a modern day treaty and I think you brought that up. That is why, in my home province of British Columbia, I am concerned. I am concerned about the fact that we are making some progress, but not quick enough. I look at problems from the government side and I see challenges on the First Nations side as well.

I want to thank you all for appearing before us and being as candid and as straightforward as you have been in your responses. We may not agree on everything, but at least if we agree on something we have made some progress.

May 20th, 2012 - Who would disagree that drinking water quality must be improved on First Nation lands? This must include access to safe, reliable and clean drinking water. The real question is, how to achieve that, in a way that adequately addresses First Nations interests, and without Canada imposing its made-in-Ottawa solutions.

"Unconstitutional" and "highly objectionable," is how Nisga'a officials describe Bill S8, Canada's safe drinking water legislation for First Nations.

Kevin McKay, Chairperson, Nisga'a Lisims Government was testifying last week at the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. He said the Nisga'a see Bill S8, as "a potential threat to section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 in general and all land claims in particular".

The Nisga'a Nation Chairperson made it clear they are not against something "as honourable as safe drinking water for First Nations". However, Senators were told that there has been "no consultation whatsoever with the Nisga'a Nation".

The Nisga'a Nation also has significant legal concerns with the contents of the bill. They object if the legislation proceeds as is, because "It expressly purports to have regulations prevail over constitutionally protected treaties. It is totally inconsistent with the provisions of the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, an act of this Parliament, and all other settlement statutes that say that the treaties prevail. The Nisga'a treaty says if there is a conflict between the Nisga'a treaty and any federal law the treaty prevails."

Another major concern the Nisga'a have, is the likely condition that they would have to opt into Canada's regulations in order to obtain federal funding for safe drinking water.

Jim Aldridge, Legal Advisor, Nisga'a Lisims Government explained: "First Nations, such the Nisga'a Nation and other groups with land claims agreements, will, we predict, be given the invidious choice. You can have money for safe drinking water or you can have your treaty rights, but you cannot have both. We say that this is a cynical, thin edge of the wedge to establish, for the first time in Canadian parliamentary history, a legislative precedent whereby constitutionally protected rights are subject to ordinary statutes of Parliament, and the next time there is a bill with this idea we suggest that the government will point to this bill as being the legislative precedent. The next time there will not be the option to opt in or opt out."

Clayton D. Leonard, Counsel, Treaty 6 and 7 of Alberta told the Senators the proposed federal legislation is seen mostly in a positive light. However, that support was qualified: "First Nations do bear liability for their own drinking water systems under this bill, and that is the main reason underlying our third condition, that we eventually address adequate funding before regulations are imposed on First Nations to fix drinking water systems. We are not prepared to accept the bill and new regulatory standards until we have the finances in place to meet those obligations."

First Nations can rest assured that they will receive the necessary resources so they are in a position to meet the requirements of government regulations regarding access to safe drinking water. That promise has come from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, John Duncan and his department's senior staff. They testified this week at the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples in Ottawa. It continues to review Bill S8, Safe Drinking Water for First Nations legislation.

During his testimony, Minister Duncan sang the praises of Canada's proposed legislation: "Bill S8 proposes to establish a collaborative process that would, on a regional basis, create a sound regulatory regime. As explicitly stated in this bill, our government will work with First Nations to develop regulations that would be implemented over a number of years. These regulations would establish standards comparable to those that safeguard drinking water elsewhere in Canada. These regulations would come into force once communities have the capacity to adhere to them."

The last point is something First Nations leaders have emphasized in their testimony during appearances before the committee. They have made it clear that they want federal assurances adequate resources will be provided by Canada, to ensure First Nations have the necessary capacity to adhere to regulations that flow from the Safe Drinking Water legislation. "We agreed to work together and ensure that the resources required to implement the regulations will be in place when the requirements become legally binding," Minister Duncan told senators.

He added that he believes Canada and First Nations have achieved something quite dramatic with Bill S8. "It went from a position of almost unanimous opposition to one that was amended in negotiation with First Nations. This process exemplifies how we can work with First Nations. It was a set of negotiations that was pragmatic, tangible and respectful, and the process as much as the result is something that we can all be proud of."

As for the concerns raised by First Nations leaders regarding consultation? Minister Duncan told senators that Canada has made a commitment in the legislation to "work with" First Nations, and he said that is "above and beyond consultation".

First Nations leaders prefer to see the word consultation included in the legislation. However, government lawyers argue that is not possible because there is no agreed upon definition of consultation.

Paul Salembier, General Counsel, Operations and Programs, Department of Justice Canada explained this perspective to senators: "Perhaps I can offer some comments on "consult." You have mentioned that some of the witnesses had a different view of what "work with" meant and what "consult" meant. Part of the problem is that the Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with a duty to consult, but they have identified a complete spectrum of what consult can mean. They have suggested this in three cases, the Haida case, the Taku case, and the Mikisew Cree case, all of which dealt with consultation regarding administration actions like the granting of forestry licenses. They have suggested that "consultation" can mean anything from simply providing information to an Aboriginal group and giving them an opportunity to present written observations all the way up to a requirement to accommodate, which, in other words, is a requirement to take whatever actions are needed in order to address that First Nation's concerns. Because of this vast range of possible meanings of "consult," if we were to put the word "consult" in the bill, we would probably be litigating it for the next 10 years as each group argues what they think it means on that wide spectrum. That is why there would be a real problem with using a word like that because it just does not have a defined meaning."

Water Legislation Progresses Despite Failure to Address Needs and Concerns of Aboriginal Women

The Ontario Native Women’s Association (ONWA) is very disappointed with the progress of Bill S-8, Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act which was recently passed by the Senate, due to grave concerns that the Bill fails to protect safe drinking water for First Nation communities.

According to traditional teachings, Indigenous women are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring the protection of water, conveying its importance and significance among their people and ensuring water resources are not exploited.

“ONWA takes particular issue with Clause 3 of Bill S-8 which, despite its recognition that this legislation does not negate existing Aboriginal treaty rights, provides exceptions ‘to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands’. This exception is vague and ‘leaves the door open’ for infringement on treaty rights.

“Water and the increasing public issues around conservation, protection and Indigenous knowledge are mainstream discussion items that lack meaningful Indigenous participation in the development of management strategies,” says Dr. Dawn Harvard, President, ONWA Board of Directors. “We insist that Indigenous women be consulted with continued respect and consideration for the fact that they have always been the ones tasked with the responsibility of providing and protecting our clean water.”

While ONWA supports the development of water quality standards and regulations, it is critical that such standards are developed as a joint effort between Aboriginal women, their communities, Aboriginal leadership, and governments. It is also imperative that consideration is given to ensure that adequate federal and provincial supports for facilitation and full implementation are provided.

ONWA’s concerns are shared by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, who noted that “the text of the bill may not, on its face, adequately address the needs of First Nations to build capacity to develop and administer appropriate laws for the regulation of water and wastewater systems on First Nation lands.” The Committee further stated that “the development of any regulations should and must be a joint process involving both the federal government and First Nations.” To date there is no such mechanism.

“Without first developing infrastructure, clear financial commitments, and adequate training programs for water system operation and management, Bill S-8 fails to address the most pressing needs and issues that pertain to First Nations drinking water and governance,” says Betty Kennedy, ONWA Executive Director. “ONWA urges that before the Bill progresses any further, a collaborative, long-term and sustainable strategy on safe drinking water for First Nations be put in place.”